SF30Amendment 2 RFP 72067424R00002 Q A.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

Aristide Horugavye Regional Contracting Officer

This RFP amendment 02 addresses questions received with answers.

Additional reference documents have been uploaded onto www.sam.gov. Those supporting documents include- Power Africa Indicator Reference Sheet and also the Local Compensation Plan Summary for West Africa.

Please see next page for further details on questions and answers.

Please see RFP Amendment 02 attachment that includes track changes.

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

TO ALL OFFERORS

See Item 6

REQ-674-23-000201

720-674-24-R-00002

1 1

See Item 16C

12/06/2022

Amendment 2, Questions & Answers – RFP No. 72067424R00002, Empower West Africa (EWA)

No Offeror Question USAID Response/Answer

General Questions

1 Would USAID consider extending the proposal submission deadline by two weeks to February 26, 2024? This extension would allow bidders adequate time to prepare a more informed and competitive proposal.

Amendment 1 to the RFP has been posted to www.sam.gov to extend the due date for proposals to March 4, 2024.

2 Could an extension be granted for the proposal submission deadline, considering the complexity and scope of the project requirements outlined in Section L?

Amendment 1 to the RFP has been posted to www.sam.gov to extend the due date for proposals to March 4, 2024.

3 Can USAID provide Offerors with the West Africa Energy Program (WAEP)’s latest deliverables, including: a) evaluation report, b) annual report FY 2023, c) work plan, and d) MEL plan for FY 2024 that includes activities under the budget extension?

The most recent MEL plan is on the DEC and the final year MEL plan will be uploaded once approved.

Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) links (https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.

aspx):

External performance evaluation of the West Africa Energy Program:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA02155 M.pdf

CLIN 1 Year 4 annual progress report:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021G GZ.pdf

CLIN 2 Year 4 annual progress report:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021G2 7.pdf

CLIN 1 Year 5 work plan:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021BS 4.pdf

CLIN 2 Year 5 work plan:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021BS 3.pdf

MEL Plan:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA0213K S.pdf

4 J.1, Pg. 62, “Offerors are encouraged to review the documents and additional information below for additional context.”

Question: To ensure a level playing field, could USAID ensure the most recent West Africa Energy Program CLIN 1

CLIN 1 and CLIN 2 annual reports and work plans are all in the DEC and quarterly reports are uploaded through June 2023. Refer to above link to the

DEC.

http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA02155M.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA02155M.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021GGZ.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021GGZ.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021G27.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021G27.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021BS4.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021BS4.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021BS3.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA021BS3.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA0213KS.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA0213KS.pdf and CLIN 2 quarterly reports, annual reports, and work plans are uploaded to the DEC?

5 The Cover Letter and other parts of the RFP alternatively indicate that the project title is Empower Western Africa or Empower West Africa. Can USAID clarify which title Offerors should use?

Empower West Africa

RFP Section C.

6 C.1 Introduction, page 8: Does USAID anticipate any overlap between the current WAEP contract and the new EWA contract to occur during the Year 1 Implementation Plan?

Overlap would be ideal. But, it will depend on how quickly this procurement moves forward.

7 C.5.1, pg. 11, 1.5 million new on-grid connections C.5.2, pg. 12, 1.5 million new off-grid connections” Question: For new connections, could USAID confirm that offerors should only propose connection targets that are direct and benefiting customers (and not projected, forecasted, or financed)?

Yes - direct connects. Refer to the attachment with current definitions of Power Africa indicators for additional information.

8 C.5.3, pg: 13, “EWA will provide a range of technical assistance and transaction advisory support to national utilities to facilitate the increased supply of sustainable power in West Africa.”

Task 3.1, Pg: 13, “The Contractor will provide targeted transaction advisory assistance to relevant private sector and development partner actors (including, but not limited to, developers, sponsors, suppliers, and investors)”

Question: The introductory paragraph under Outcome 3 only talks about transaction advisory support for utilities.

The description of Task 3.1 only talks about transaction advisory support for public and private entities. Can USAID please confirm that work under Outcome 3 will include support to all relevant public and private stakeholders related to sustainable power development activities?

Yes - work under Outcome 3 will include support to all relevant public and private stakeholders related to sustainable power development activities.

9 C.5.4, pg. 14, 1,500 GWh/year of new electricity capacity committed for regional trade” Question: Could USAID confirm that the new electricity capacity committed for regional trade can result from both coordinated market mechanisms as well as bilaterally traded energy?

Yes - it can be bilateral or through broader market mechanisms.

RFP Section F.

10 Section F.2(a) (page 25) indicates a contract end date of September 30, 2028, which is less than four years of implementation. There is also language that mentions an

The information included in Section F.2(a) incorporates required narrative related to Section 889 compliance.

option period beginning on October 1, 2028; however, the rest of the RFP is written as a standard five-year program.

Would USAID clarify if the program performance period will be four years plus one option year or five years?

USAID’s intent is to have a 5-year program. The structure of Section F.2(a) will depend on whether the contractor has covered technology as described under Section 889. See below question and answer for additional information.

The RFP is a standard five (5) years for the implementation of the Empower West Africa (EWA) activity program from the contract effective date.

11 F.2 Period of Performance, Page 25 For estimating and planning purposes, can USAID please provide an estimated start date and end date of this program for a contractor that at the time of award represents paragraph (c)(2) of the provision at FAR 52.204–26 that it “does not” use covered telecommunications equipment or services

If a contractor does not use covered technology, then the anticipated period of performance would start in June or July 2024 and end five years after the start date.

12 Section F.7.1 (page 29) requires that the grants manual be submitted 60 days after award. Given that the activities identified in the work plan and our overall implementation approach will feed into developing the grants manual, would USAID consider requiring the draft grants manual to be due 90 days after award?

The Grants Manual will largely describe processes that will be followed. The draft Grants Manual will be due at 60 days and the final at 90 days. There is no change to the RFP. The Grants manual will have limited technical information.

13 F.4.A, pg. 26, All five (5) of the above Key Personnel are based in the contractor field office in Accra, Ghana.”

L.11.5, pg. 83, 2. Key Personnel Roles… The Offeror should provide the following information …where the individual will be geographically located.”

Question a: Section F.4.A requires all five Key Personnel to be based in Accra, Ghana. However, in Section L.11.5, the instructions for the Key Personnel Roles annex require the offeror to propose where the individual will be geographically located. Would USAID confirm that offerors are free to propose the location of the fifth Key Personnel position (and it does not have to be based in Accra)?

Question b: To allow the greatest flexibility for the offeror to propose a staffing plan that aligns with the proposed technical approach, would USAID kindly consider requiring only the Chief of Party to be based in Accra, and allow the offeror to propose other locations for the other four key personnel, as long as it is within the EWA place of performance?

Question a: Yes - offerors can propose where the 5th key personnel position will be based. The other four key personnel positions of Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, Senior Technical Advisor and Finance Manager must be based in Accra.

The requirement in F.4A. has been changed to permit the fifth (5th) key personnel position, proposed by the offeror, to be based in a location proposed by the offeror.

Question b: No. The RFP has been revised as described above regarding the location of the offeror proposed 5th key personnel position.

14 F.4.1, pg.26, Chief of Party…minimum requirement for this position are as follows:

● A Master’s Degree.

● Minimum ten (10) years of management experience in implementing energy related programs for on- and beyond-

Yes, the offeror may propose a COP with a bachelor’s degree and a minimum of 10 years of management experience in implementing energy related programs for on- and beyond-the-grid the-grid solutions.”

Question: To maximize the pool of qualified candidates, would USAID kindly consider accepting additional years of experience in lieu of a master’s degree for the Chief of Party (COP)? The requirements for the Empower East and Central Africa (EECA) Empower Southern Africa (ESA) COPs are both a bachelor’s degree and a minimum of 10 years of project management experience. Maintaining equivalent minimum requirements for COPs across all Power Africa contracts with similar scopes of work will ensure equity among Power Africa COPs.

solutions.

Section F.4.1 has been changed to delete the graduate degree and replace it with a bachelor’s degree.

15 F.4.3, pg. 27, “Senior Technical Advisor…Fluency in English and French” H.3, pg. 39, “Not all key and non-key personnel are required to be proficient in all the 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.”

Question: Section H.3 requires that at least one key personnel have French language proficiency. However, Section F.4.3 specifies that the Senior Technical Advisor must have French language fluency. Would USAID kindly consider deferring to the guidance in Section H.3, and require the offeror to propose a minimum of one Key Personnel with fluency in French? This would allow for a more diverse candidate pool for the Senior Technical Advisor and allow offerors to propose the most qualified key personnel to USAID.

Yes, the Offeror may propose one Key Personnel (not necessarily the Senior Technical Advisor) who has fluency in French.

RFP Section F.4 Key Personnel has been modified to state that one key personnel must have French proficiency. RFP Section F.4.3 has been revised to delete the French language requirement under the Senior Technical Advisor key personnel position.

16 F.4.4, pg 27, Key Personnel #4: Finance Manager” Question: Would USAID consider changing the title of the required key personnel position “Finance Manager” to “Senior Finance Manager” or “Finance Director”? Given that this is a Key Personnel role, the most qualified candidates are likely to be interested in a title that reflects the level of management and responsibility they will be overseeing for a regional activity of this size and scope.

Yes, the Offeror may change the name of the KP position to Senior Finance Manager or Finance Director. The title in RFP Section F.4.4. has been edited to change the title to Finance Director/Sr.

Finance Manager.

17 F.4.4, Page 27, The RFP states that the Finance Manager must have a “Minimum of ten (10) years of experience in overseeing financial or accounting on a project of similar dollar value.” Given the proposed scale EWA, and the very small pool of local professionals that meet this decade-long requirement for a specialized type of at-scale accounting and finance experience, there is the potential for this 10-year large-project experience requirement to impede USAID’s stated commitment to localization. Given that comparable Key Personnel positions outlined in the RFP require only five (Deputy Chief of Party) or seven (Senior Technical Advisor) years of experience, would USAID consider changing the required ten years of project

Yes, RFP Section F.4.4 has been changed to reflect a minimum of 7 years instead of 10 years.

experience for the Finance Manager to a minimum of seven years, with the majority of that time overseeing finance or accounting on a project of similar dollar value?

RFP Section G.

18 G.1 Documentation for Payment, 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?

G.1 includes Agency for International Development Regulation (AIDAR) clause 752.7003. USAID/Southern Africa has no authority to change this clause.

a. a. Contractor invoices generally look quite different from Table 7.

b.

b. Table 7 could include the suggested categories. However, generally more information is required and can break down to salary, fringe, allowances, ODCs, etc. Invoicing instructions will be provided to the contractor post award.

RFP Section H.

19 H.3, pg. 39, “at least one Key Personnel should possess Portuguese proficiency” Question: The three countries in the Empower West Africa place of performance with Portuguese as an official language (Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea, and Guinea- Bissau) all have populations under 2.1 million and are therefore unlikely to generate significant contributions towards Empower West Africa results. Therefore, would USAID kindly reconsider the requirement for at least one key personnel to have proficiency in Portuguese? Rather, would USAID require contractors to have at least one position in the organizational chart (removing the requirement from key personnel) that possesses Portuguese proficiency?

The offeror may propose one full time professional position within their org chart (e.g. a transaction advisor or someone of comparable level of experience or of expected responsibility) that possess Portuguese proficiency.

Section H.3 has been revised to state that, “at least one long term position on the organizational chart should be someone who possesses Portuguese language proficiency.

20 H3. Language Requirements, Page 39 We note USAID’s requirement that “at least one Key Personnel should possess Portuguese proficiency”. While we recognize the importance of the three Lusophone nations listed in the RFP to EWA’s regional goals, the relatively remote nature and small size of those markets (comprising less than 1% of EWA’s population base)--suggest that requiring a Ghana-resident Portuguese speaking Key Personnel (with a preference for a regional national) may not be the most efficient use of EWA’s resources. For the sake of operational simplicity, and to enable a more efficient allocation of resources, would USAID consider removing this Key Personnel Portuguese-speaking requirement?

See the answer above. Portuguese is no longer required for a key personnel position. However, one of the long-term positions on the organization chart should be someone with Portuguese language proficiency.

RFP Section J

21 J.2 Forms and Templates, page 62 indicates that the budget template is at www.sam.gov; however, a budget template was not found at the webpage for this opportunity. Can USAID share the budget template?

This format has now been uploaded to www.sam.gov.

22 Section L.12 Part 3 (page 84) References a budget template in Attachment J to include in the cost proposal; however, it is missing from the solicitation attachments. Would USAID share the budget template?

This format has now been uploaded to www.sam.gov.

23 J.2.1, pg.: 62, “Budget Template (uploaded to www.sam.gov)”

Question a: Section J.2.1 indicates that a budget template has been uploaded to the Solicitation Notice: Empower West Africa/Solicitation No. 720674R00002 page on sam.gov. However, Attachment J.2.1 is not included in the list of Attachments/Links on that webpage. Can USAID please provide the Budget Template referenced in Section J.2.1?

Question b: Alternatively, may offerors use their own existing budget template as long as it follows the layout shown in Section L.12, Part 3?

Question a: This format has now been uploaded to www.sam.gov.

Question b: Offerors may add delete rows as necessary. However, the overall budget structure should follow the template now on www.sam.gov.

24 Section L.12, Part 3(1)(i) – Summary Budget, Pg 84, Section L.12, Part 3(1)(i) – Summary Budget references budget template in Attachment J. However, Attachment J does not provide a link to the budget template, but instead to www.sam.gov. Would USAID allow offerors to use their own budget templates to ensure alignment with offerors’ cost structures, as long as they adhere to the primary budget categories featured in Section B?

Offerors may add delete rows as necessary. However, the overall budget structure should follow the template now on www.sam.gov.

25 For Section J.2 (page 62), would USAID provide the link to access the Past Performance Information Sheet?

This format has now been uploaded to www.sam.gov.

26 J.2.2, pg.62, “Past Performance Information Sheet (uploaded to www.sam.gov)” Question: Section J.2.2 indicates that the required format for past performance has been uploaded to the Solicitation Notice: Empower West Africa/Solicitation No.

720674R00002 page on sam.gov. However, Attachment J.2.2 is not included in the list of Attachments/Links on that webpage. Could USAID provide the required format for past performance?

This format has now been uploaded to www.sam.gov.

RFP Section L

27 Section L.4(d) (page 79) states, “Multiple emails may be sent to accommodate the proposal size and content;”

however, there is no maximum email size specified in the RFP. Would USAID confirm that submission emails may

Individual emails cannot exceed 20MB.

http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ be up to 15MB each?

28 L.7.4., pg. 79, “Multiple emails may be sent to accommodate the proposal size and content” Question: Could USAID provide the MB size limit for individual emails?

Individual emails cannot exceed 20MB.

29 L.4 Delivery Instructions (d), page 79: 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?

Individual emails cannot exceed 20MB.

30 L.4 Proposal emails, Page 78 Kindly clarify if there is any MB limit for proposal email attachments.

Individual emails cannot exceed 20MB.

31 As well as addressing the extraordinary problems and quality awards requested in the past performance section, may offerors include an additional narrative showcasing other relevant projects?

No

32 L.11.1, pg. 81, “The Technical Proposal includes the following:”

Question a: For ease of reading, would USAID allow offerors to include a Table of Contents and a List of Acronyms that do not count against the 30-page limit?

Question b: To enhance readability of the Technical Proposal, may offerors include a 2-page executive summary that does not count against the 30-page limit?

Yes, offerors may include a Table of Contents and List of Acronyms. Neither will count against the page limit.

No executive summary is allowed.

33 Section L.11, Page 81 Can USAID confirm offerors can include a Table of Contents and Acronym List, that will not be counted against the 30-page technical proposal limitation?

Yes, offerors may include a Table of Contents and List of Acronyms. Neither will count against the page limit.

34 L.11.1 Technical Proposal Sections and Annexes, page

81. Would USAID allow Offerors to include: 1) Executive Summary, 2) Table of Contents, and 3) Acronyms Page, independent of the 30 pages allocated for the technical approach and staffing and management approach?

Yes, offerors may include a Table of Contents and List of Acronyms. Neither will count against the page limit. No executive summary is allowed.

35 L.11.1, pg. 81, “No annexes other than the ones described above will be evaluated.”

Question: So that offerors may present evidence to demonstrate the realism of proposed targets, would USAID allow an additional annex for indicators, targets, and evidence?

No

36 Section L.11.4, Page 82: “The Offeror must also demonstrate how USAID priorities, such as the Agency’s digitization strategy, localization, gender, social inclusion and climate strategy, are suitably integrated into the project and identify any risks, addressing how they will be mitigated.” Can USAID confirm that the “USAID priorities” mentioned in this sentence refers to the Guiding Principles listed in Section C.7? If not, can USAID provide a reference

Yes, USAID priorities as included in Section L.11.4 refers to the Guiding Principles that are listed in RFP Section C.7.

for the full list of priorities?

37 L.11.5, pg. 83, “3. Resumes (3 pages maximum for each resume, total 15 pages maximum)- Resumes for the 5 key personnel positions (4 defined in this solicitation and 1 defined by the offeror). Resumes must include e- mails, names, and titles of 3 professional references for the COP and DCOP and Operational Lead.”

Question: May offerors provide the professional references for the COP and DCOP Operational Lead on a separate page that does not count against the 3-page resume limit?

This would allow the COP and DCOP Operational Lead resumes to use the full 3 pages, same as the Senior Technical Advisor, Finance Manager, and the fifth key personnel resumes.

No

38 In Section L.12 Part 2 (page 84), USAID requests past performance information about projects “with a cost above $65,000,000, with a period of performance falling within the last three years, and involving the energy sector activities and services in a foreign country.” To ensure fairer competition, would USAID consider reducing the minimum contract value and extending the performance period to the past five years so that offerors may include smaller scale yet relevant projects that have an energy component?

This section of the RFP has been modified to reduce the amount from $65,000,000 to $30,000,000.

The performance period was also changed to include the past 5 years.

39 L.12, Part 2.1, pg 84, “list past performance information for itself with a cost above $65,000,000, with a period of performance falling within the last three years and involving the energy sector activities and services in a foreign county.”

Question: There are very few USAID energy contracts with a cost above $65 million. To allow offerors to present the full range of relevant contracts, would USAID kindly lower the threshold to $45 million?

This section of the RFP has been modified to reduce the amount from $65,000,000 to $30,000,000.

The performance period was also changed to include the past 5 years.

40 L.12 Instructions for the Preparation of the Business/Cost Proposal, Part 2 - Past performance, page 84: Would USAID consider extending the period of performance for past performance information to five years as opposed to three? Given limited contracts were awarded above the $65M price threshold in the last three years in sub-Saharan Africa, expanding this parameter would allow additional Contractor CPARs to be evaluated.

This section of the RFP has been modified to reduce the amount from $65,000,000 to $30,000,000.

The performance period was also changed to include the past 5 years.

41 Section L. 12 (1), Page 84 : We note USAID’s instruction to only include PPI sheets for contracts not included in CPARS. As such:

i. Can USAID please confirm that - should all of an offeror’s examples of past performance that meet the relevancy criteria contained within L.12.(1) [a cost above $65,000,000, with a period of performance falling within the last three years and involving the energy sector activities

i. Correct. There is no need to submit PPI sheets if the information is available in the CPAR system.

and services in a foreign county] be USAID engagements, and would therefore have a record of their performance in CPARS - then USAID’s desire it to have that offeror submit no PPI sheets?

ii. Can USAID confirm that the relevancy criteria outlined in L.12.(1), not only represent the minimum criteria for non- CPARS submissions, but that those criteria will also be applied to its selection/evaluation of offerors’ CPARS-based past performance information?

iii. To aid in the process of checking CPARS, will USAID permit offerors to include up to three unedited reproductions of their most recent CPARS that meet the relevancy standard outlined in L.12.(1) within the Cost Proposal - thereby supporting a complete and streamlined review of this important performance documentation?

ii. The same relevancy criteria will be applied to all past performance information, whether in CPARs or not.

Iii. No.

42 L.12, Part 2, pg. 84, (1) For contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), offerors (including all partners of a joint venture) and major subcontractors (those subcontractors valued at 20% or more of the contract value) must use the ‘Past Performance Information Sheet’ (included as Attachment J.2.2) to list past performance information…

(2) Provide for each of the contracts the information that is required per Attachment J.2.2 ‘Past Performance Information Sheet.’” Question: On page 84, item #1 of the Past Performance requirement says that offerors must only fill out Attachment J.2.2 for contracts that are not in CPARS, implying that offerors are not required to complete the information sheet for contracts that are in CPARS. However, item #2 requires offerors to “provide for each of the contracts the information that is required per Attachment J.2.2 ‘Past Performance Information Sheet.’” Could USAID confirm that offerors are not required to complete Attachment J.2.2 Past Performance Information Sheet for contracts that are in CPARS?

Offerors are not required to complete Attachment J.2.2. Past Performance Information Sheet for contracts that are in CPARs.

RFP Section L.12 Part 2 Past Performance (2) has been modified to state that the attachment is required for contracts that are not in the CPAR system.

43 Section L.12, Part 1 – Standard Form 33, Page 83 Section L.12, Part 1 states that “The Offeror must submit the cover page (Section A) of this Solicitation [Standard Form (SF) 33, "Solicitation, Offer, and Award"], with blocks 12 through 18 completed, with an original signature of a person authorized on behalf of the Offeror to sign the offer.” Since proposals will be submitted electronically, could USAID please confirm that an electronic or scanned signature will be sufficient in lieu of original signatures?

An electronic signature is sufficient.

44 Section L.12, Part 3 (1)(G) - Construction, Page 85 Can USAID confirm that the $2M construction plug figure is inclusive of costs such as engineering advisory support and construction risk management and applicable indirect costs?

The construction plug figure does not include prime offeror indirect costs.

It includes engineering advisory support and construction risk management.

45 Section L.12, Part 4(a) – Reps & Certs, Page 87-88 Section L.12, Part 4(a) - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors requires that “the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete all "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror". Could you kindly confirm that this requirement applies to major subcontractors only.

This applies to major subcontractors only.

46 Section L.12, Page 83 Would USAID consider providing the Mission’s Local Compensation Plan or the salary range for various categories of locally employed staff for the countries listed in the RFP to ensure Offerors are able to fairly and equitably allocate rates for their national staff in line with USAID’s salary standards?

A summary of available plans has been uploaded to www.sam.gov as an attachment to the RFP. If any additional information becomes available, it will be uploaded to the www.sam.gov RFP posting.

47 Can USAID provide the local compensation plan for Ghana?

A summary of available plans has been uploaded to www.sam.gov as an attachment to the RFP.

48 Can USAID provide the local compensation plan for the project countries in West Africa?

A summary of available plans has been uploaded to www.sam.gov as an attachment to the RFP.

49 Section L.12, Page 83 RFP states that “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.”

i. 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?

ii. Alternatively, if an Offeror knows that there is an exemption in place, can the Offeror exclude VAT for those specific countries (e.g., Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire)?

iii. Alternatively – in order to enable comparability across multiple proposals - does USAID wish offerors to apply a single, universal VAT rate across each country, and if so, what rate should be applied?

i. USAID/Southern Africa does not have a current list of countries with current bilateral agreements in place.

ii. If an Offeror knows that there is an exemption in place, the offeror may exclude VAT for those specific countries. The offeror should describe in the Cost Narrative how it reached the conclusion that there is a current bilateral in place.

iii. Offerors should apply the VAT rate they feel is appropriate for each country in which operations or activities are anticipated. The rate used should be explained/justified in the Cost Narrative.

50 C3. Objective & M3. Technical Evaluation Factors, Page 92 We note USAID’s statement that “proposed key

The statement applies to citizens of all WAPP countries.

http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ personnel who are nationals of countries in which EWA will implement will receive a higher rating than those who are nationals of other countries” We very much support USAID’s focus on localization, but given the importance of WAPP and multiple other regional groupings to EWA’s success - plus the RFP’s statement that USAID may require the Contractor to implement work in other WAPP locations “when such work is required to advance regional issues and interests” - can USAID please clarify that the above statement applies to citizens of all WAPP countries?

51 Section B.7, C.5, L.12 (K) paragraph on Fixed Fee states “For example, the achievement of 5 million new on grid connections could be broken out by year depending on the offeror’s strategy for implementation.” Section B.7 also includes this 5 million target for new on-grid connections.

Yet Section C.5.1 notes the expected result for new on-grid connections is 1.5 million. We respectfully request USAID confirm that the expected result for new on-grid connections is 1.5 million and clarify sections L.12 and B.7 accordingly.

Yes - 1.5 million is the expected result for new on-grid connections. The examples provided in Section B.7 and L.12 have been edited to 1.5M.

52 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)?

The contractor will receive fee associated with results within the overall contract period of performance, including those that might have been achieved in a year other than initially anticipated.

53 Could you present a summary of the essential eligibility criteria for bidders?

Please refer to the RFP for this information.

54 Is there planned a preliminary stage of assistance to country candidates for better preparation of submissions?

No.

55 Could you share a summary of the eligible project categories?

All relevant information regarding this activity is included in the RFP. No additional information will be provided.

56 Could you share a summary of the grant ranges by eligible project categories?

All relevant information regarding this activity is included in the RFP. No additional information will be provided.

57 Although the appeals file template provides similar parts to regular templates, is it possible to share an existing submission template as a case study?

No

58 What KPI's is USAID going by to measure maximum impact in your project?

Please refer to the indicators included in the solicitation and attached for more information.

59 Is there a specific country or countries USAID has any preference funding for this RFP?

All the West African countries listed are eligible for assistance. There is no preference for one country over another.

60 Would USAID consider a brief Zoom call with us to discuss further?

No

61 L.1 [Page 77]: Are there specific solicitation provisions in L.1 that the offerors should pay particular attention given the project’s scope?

Offerors are responsible for reading the RFP in its entirety.

62 L.9 [Page 80] : Is there room for negotiation regarding the duration of offer validity stated in L.9?

No

63 L.8 OFFER ACCEPTABILITY [Page 83] Could you elaborate on the criteria used to determine offer acceptability as mentioned in L.8?

Refer to Section L.8. No additional information is available.

64 Can USAID clarify if Offerors may use their own budget template as long as it follows the instructions in L.12?

Offerors must follow the template uploaded to www.sam.gov. Additional rows may be added, deleted or renamed as necessary.

65 For budgeting purposes, can USAID provide the expected start date of this project?

The anticipated start date is between June and July 2024.

66 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?

No

67 L.4 Delivery Instructions (d), page 79 indicates that portable document format (.pdf) is acceptable for electronic submission, while L.10 Proposal Format indicates that the budget narrative should be in Microsoft Word and other documents may be in Word or PDF. 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?

RFP Section L.10 has been revised to remove the requirement the narrative be in Microsoft Word. All portions, except the Excel budget, can be in text accessible PDF file format.

68 L.11.5 Staffing and Management Approach, Resumes Annex, page 83: Would USAID allow for the three professional references for the 1) COP and 2) DCOP and Operational Lead to be submitted on a separate page, outside of the three-page limitation per resume?

No

RFP Section M

69 M5. EVALUATION OF COST [Page 40] Can you provide further details on how the cost proposals will be evaluated as per M5, especially regarding the assessment of fairness and reasonableness of costs?

Please refer to RFP Section M.2 (4 and 5), pg. 91 and 92. This section describes the process that will be followed.

70 M [PAGE 90] What are the key aspects that the technical evaluation committee will focus on Could you clarify the weighting of technical versus cost factors in the proposal evaluation process?

The soundness of the proposed approach, how realistic the targets and proposed activities are and how responsive the entire proposal is to the requirements of the SOW.

71 SECTION M [PAGE 90] How will the “neutral”; rating in past performance, as described in Section M4, affect the overall evaluation of a proposal?

The RFP Section M references FAR

15.305 which states, “(iv) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.”

72 SECTION M [PAGE 90] How will the Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) process mentioned in Section M be implemented in practice?

The process will be implemented in accordance with the steps described in RFP Section M.2 (pg. 91).

73 SECTION M [PAGE 90] Are there specific technical benchmarks or thresholds that offerors must meet to be considered for award?

Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the process and information provided in Section M.

74 SECTION M [PAGE 90] How will past performance be factored into the evaluation process, especially for newer entities with limited performance history?

Section M sets describes how past performance will be considered.

75 SECTION M [PAGE 90] In terms of cost realism, what specific elements will be scrutinized to ensure realistic budgeting?

Please refer to RFP Section M.2(4 and 5), pg. 91 which states, “As direct labor is the principal cost driver of the provision of Level Of Effort, cost realism will be done only on an offeror’s direct labor. Adjustments from this analysis will be applied to other costs that are derived from direct labor (e.g. indirect costs).”

76 SECTION M [PAGE 90] For Section M, are there any common pitfalls or mistakes in proposal submissions that offerors should avoid?

Offerors are strongly encouraged to follow all instructions within the RFP.

77 SECTION M [PAGE 90] How does USAID define; technical superiority; within the context of this RFP, and what are some examples of this?

As referenced in Section M.7, “technical superiority,” refers to a proposal that is evaluated and receives higher technical ratings than other received proposals.

No examples are available.

78 SECTION M [PAGE 90] Can examples of successful proposals from similar past projects be provided for reference?

No.

79 SECTION M [PAGE 90] Are there specific innovative approaches or technologies that USAID is particularly interested in for this project?

All information available is included in the RFP. Offerors should propose the technical approach that will meet required results.

80 SECTION M [PAGE 90] How will compliance with environmental and social governance (ESG) criteria be evaluated?

The offerors will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria defined in Section M of the solicitation.

81 SECTION M [PAGE 90] Is there an appeals process for offerors who are not selected, and if so, what does it entail?

Offerors who are not selected and wish to appeal or protest can follow the guidance found here: FAR 52.233-2 Service of Protest, and 52.233-3 Protest After Award. Both are described here:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-

52#FAR_52_233_2

82 SECTION M [PAGE 90] What specific monitoring and evaluation mechanisms can be established to continuously assess the program impact and adapt strategies as needed?

The contractor will develop a monitoring and evaluation plan. USAID may contract independent contractors to conduct evaluations of the EWA contractor.

83 SECTION M [PAGE 90] What are the risk management and contingency plans for potential political, economic, and environmental challenges that might arise during the program?

The contractor will develop any risk management and/or contingency plans for political, economic and environmental challenges.

84 SECTION M [PAGE 90] What provisions are in place for the maintenance of the energy infrastructure, and how will local technicians and engineers be trained for this purpose?

The contractor will ensure operations and maintenance is addressed before the start of any construction. The contractor will be required to engage with qualified engineers and other personnel working in construction.

85 SECTION M [PAGE 90] What efficiency metrics and performance benchmarks are being set for new energy infrastructure, and how will these be monitored and evaluated?

This information isn’t available.

86 SECTION M [PAGE 90] How will the program ensure that all equipment and infrastructure comply with international quality and safety standards?

The contractor will be responsible for ensuring any construction meets appropriate quality and safety standards.

USAID Engineers will conduct periodic inspections to verify quality and safety issues have been addressed.

87 M.2, pg. 91, “This procurement utilizes a Highest Technical rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) process for award, not a tradeoff process.”

RFP Reference: 94, pg. M.7 “award will be made by USAID to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the U.S. Government”

Question: In Sections M.1 and M.2, the method of evaluation is stated to be “Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR)” (emphasis included each time). However, Section M.7 states the evaluation type is Best Value. To clarify the evaluation methodology, would USAID kindly remove or revise Section M.7 to be consistent with the rest of Section M?

The Highest Technically Rated with Fair and reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) evaluation methodology falls along the best value continuum. In the HTR process, technical superiority plays a larger role in source selection than other processes such as trade off or lowest price technically acceptable.

Therefore, RFP Section M.7 will continue to reference Best Value and the process described in M.2 for HTR.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52#FAR_52_233_2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52#FAR_52_233_2

88 M.3 Technical Approach, page 92: Can USAID confirm that “core principles” in this section are also the Guiding Principles described in section C.7 (page 18)?

Yes, core principles and guiding principles are the same thing. Section M.3 has been edited to change ‘core’ to ‘guiding.’ The Guiding Principles are in Section C.7.

89 M3. Technical Evaluation Factors, Page 92 Statement on page 92: “Extent to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach (including: development context, core principles, implementation strategy, proposed activities and targets, draft first year implementation plan.” Can USAID confirm that the “core principles” mentioned in this sentence refers to the Guiding Principles listed in Section C7?

Yes, core principles and guiding principles are the same thing. Section M.3 has been edited to change ‘core’ to ‘guiding.’ The Guiding Principles are in Section C.7.

90 M4. (a) Past Performance, Cover Page USAID’s statement that “Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision.” appears to be inconsistent with the RFP’s statement elsewhere that “The competition will utilize a Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) process, not a tradeoff process.”

Please clarify whether HTR or Best Value will be utilized in this procurement.

HTR is one method of arriving at Best Value for the USG. Lowest Cost Technically Acceptable and Trade Off are two other Best Value processes.

Past performance review will follow the process outlined in RFP Section M.2.

END OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP Number: 72067424R00002 RFP Title: Empower Western Africa (EWA) RFP Issuance Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 Questions Due Date and Time: Thursday, January 25, 2024, 6:00pm EST Closing Date and Time for Receipt of Proposals: MondayThursday, March 4February 12, 2024, 6:00pm EST

To All Prospective Offerors:

The United States Government, represented by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) anticipates awarding one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion contract with an estimated period of performance of five (5) years for the implementation of the Empower West Africa (EWA) activity. Subject to availability of funds, the estimated cost range for this contract is between $68,000,000 - $75,000,000.

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) is eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 apply. The competition will utilize a Highest Technical Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price and Realistic Cost (HTR) process, not a tradeoff process. In this process, USAID is concerned with getting the best technical solution that has a fair and reasonable price and realistic cost. There will not be a tradeoff to justify paying a premium for a higher technical rated proposal.

Section L of the RFP sets forth all instructions for the preparation and submission of required proposal content, including critical dates/times for the submission of questions, and the proposal submission closing date and time. Section M states the criteria by which proposals will be evaluated.

Any questions related to this RFP must be submitted by email to proposals@usaid.gov with a copy to Aristide Horugavye at ahorugavye@usaid.gov by the time and date specified above. No questions will be accepted after the date and time stated above.

This RFP can be viewed and downloaded from https://sam.gov/content/home. USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. Further, be aware that amendments to solicitations are occasionally issued and will be posted on the same website from which you downloaded the solicitation. USAID advises to regularly check the above website for amendments.

The principal geographic code for this contract is 935. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this activity is 541690 Other Scientific and Consulting Services. Under 13 CFR 121.201, the U.S. Small Business size standard is $19M of annual receipts.

mailto:proposals@usaid.gov mailto:ahorugavye@usaid.gov https://sam.gov/content/home

RFP No. 72067424R00002

Issuance of this solicitation does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government to award a contract nor does it commit the U.S. Government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.