GIGA RFP 72067524R00002_Amendment 1.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

Edel Perez-Campos, Director Regional Acquisition & Assistance

The purpose of this Amendment No. 01 is to:

1. Extend the closing date and time for proposals submission from March 15, 2024 to March 28, 2024 at 12:00 pm (noon) GMT Guinea time;

2. Provide answers to the questions received in response to the Guinea Integrated Governance (GIGA) Request for Proposals No.72067524R00002; and

3. Revise RFP No. 72067524R00002. All changes made to the revised RFP are highlighted in yellow.

All other terms of the RFP remain unchanged.

USAID/Guinea & Sierra Leone

All potential Offerors

USAID/Guinea & Sierra Leone

RFP # 72067524R00002

See Block 16 C.

January 26, 2024

GENERAL

Question # 1 – Can USAID please provide the anticipated start date of the project?

Response: The anticipated start date is on or about August 1st, 2024.

Question # 2 - Can USAID please confirm that as part of past performance, Offerors can include both contracts and cooperative agreements?

Response: Both contract and cooperative agreements will be considered for past performance evaluation.

SECTION B

Question # 3 -In Section B.3(c), USAID states that fee will be tied to deliverables in Section F.6.

Could USAID please confirm that fee will be tied to the plans, reports, and deliverables specified in Section F.7?

Response: This is a completion type contract and the fixed fee payment will directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid as negotiated and specified in the Budget table in Section B of the award. The fixed fee schedule will be paid in equal installments according to Section B.3.c. and B.10.

Question # 4 - Section B.3(c) on page 8 indicates that the fixed fee for CLIN 001 will be “tied to the conditions and completion of the deliverables specified in Section F.6…”. Section L.9(f)— Part 2(2) on page 137 states that the fixed fee for CLIN 001, after withholding $100K for final settlement, “will be divided by the number of months in the award (est. 60) and paid in equal installments when invoiced.” Could USAID please clarify how the fixed fee for CLIN 001 will be paid? Should USAID clarify that it will be paid in equal installments as described in Section L.9, kindly confirm that the Fee Schedule budget tab would include only a table with 60 equal payments of fixed fee and the $100K withholding.

Response: See response to question 3 above.

Question # 5- Section B.4 states, “It is expected that the GUCs total amount will be up to $3,000,000 of the total estimated amount.” However, page 13 of the Statement of Objectives states, “approximately 12% of the overall GIGA budget will be utilized to support Grants under Contract.” Could USAID please confirm the maximum amount to be used for grants under contract?

Response: Please note that the GUCs total amount will be up to $3,000,000. The SOO has been revised to show the correct amount.

Question # 6 - Section B.6(b) on page 9 states, “The CLIN 002 fee set forth in B.3.b is based upon furnishing the level-of-effort [LOE] specified in B.6.a.” However, Section B.6.a does not provide an LOE ceiling. Could USAID please clarify the LOE ceiling for CLIN 002?

Response: The LOE will be determined if/when a supplemental technical assistance task order is issued.

SECTION F

Question # 7 - Section F.4 Authorized Workday/Week indicates that only a five-day work week is authorized. Would USAID kindly consider amending this section to allow for a six-day work week for short-term technical assistance assignments being conducted in the field?

Response: Short-term technical assistance who are assigned to the contract are authorized to work a six (6) day workweek.

Question # 8 - Page 16, F.7.1 The Start-Up and Preliminary Work Plan. The RFP states that, “The start-up plan will be submitted to the COR for written approval within 30 days of award.” Item 6 to be included is the First Year Work Plan. The Deliverables Table on Page 22 indicates the due date for ‘Annual Work Plans’ as 45 days after signature of award.’ Could USAID confirm that the first work plan is due 30 days after award, with subsequent work plans due 30 days before the end of the fiscal year?

Response: The start-up/mobilization plan is due 15 days after signature of award, see F.7.1. The annual work plan is a separate document and is due 45 days after award signature and 30 days before the end of the fiscal year for subsequent years per Section F.7.2.

Question # 9 - Pages 15-23. F.7 Plans, Reports, Deliverables and Performance Monitoring. The solicitation presents a few minor disconnects between the listing of deliverables in the narrative of Section F.7 and the summary Deliverables Table on pages 22-23. We respectfully request alignment between the narratives of the following deliverables with the Deliverables Table on page 22 to ensure a complete and consistent listing of expected deliverables.

● Page 17, F.7.5 Annual Pause-and-Reflect Sessions ⮚ The page 17 narrative includes this deliverable, but is not included in the

Deliverables Table. It does not include an anticipated Due Date Response: Deliverable added and the submission due date will be determined with the COR after signature of the award.

● Page 18, F.7.7 Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Report (EMMR) ⮚ The page 18 narrative indicates that the EMMR should be submitted as part of the annual progress report; however, the Deliverable Table (page 22) indicates it should be submitted as part of the quarterly progress report. Kindly confirm that the EMMR should be submitted as part of the annual progress report.

Response: Correction made. EMMR must be submitted as part of the annual performance report.

● Page 21, F.7.14 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) ⮚ The page 21 narrative includes this deliverable, but it is not included in the

Deliverables Table. A due date/timeframe is not included in Section F, but Section L.8.2(8)vi indicates that the Draft QASP is due as part of the proposal submission. Separately, Attachment J.6.A (page 88) indicates that the Updated QASP is due within 90 days of contract award.

Response: The draft QASP must be submitted as part of the technical application.

The final QASP must be submitted 60 days after signature of the award.

● Page 21, F.7.17 Local Capacity Development Plan (LCDP) ⮚ The page 21 narrative includes this deliverable and due date but it is not included in the Deliverables Table.

Response: Correction made. The LCDP has been incorporated into the deliverables table.

Based on the above, we respectfully recommend the following inclusions in the Deliverables Table:

Deliverables Due Date Annual Pause-and-Reflect Sessions As determined in coordination with the COR Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Report (EMMR)

Included in the Annual Progress Report

Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP)

As an annex at the time of proposal submission

Updated Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP)

Within 90 days of contract award

Local Capacity Development Plan (LCDP) Submitted to the COR by 120 days after the award effective date

Response: Deliverables table has been updated.

Question # 10 -Page 21, F.7.16 The Grants Under Contract (GUC) Manual. The RFP states “The Contractor must create a detailed GUC Management Plan to be submitted to the CO by 45 calendar days after the contract period of performance start date.” The deliverables table on page 23 refers to the submission of the GUC Manual 45 days after award signature. Could USAID clarify whether both a GUC Management Plan and a GUC Manual are due 45 days after award, or only a GUC Manual is due 45 days after award signature?

Response: A GUC Manual must be submitted 45 days after signature of the award.

Question #11 - The table on pages 22-23 of Section F.7 with required plans, reports, and deliverables does not include the Local Capacity Development Plan (LCDP) described in Section F.7.17. Can USAID confirm that the LCDP is a required deliverable?

Response: As indicated in F.7.17 a detailed Local Capacity Development Plan must be submitted 120 days after award signature.

RFP Reference: F.7 Plans, Reports, Deliverables and Performance Monitoring, H.4(b)(1)(iii) Submission Requirements for Development Experience Documents, H.4(b)(2) Essential bibliographic information Page Number: 16, 31, and 32 Relevant RFP Language:

“All reports and other deliverables must be submitted electronically. Electronic versions of the reports will be submitted using unlocked Microsoft Word, Excel, or Portable Document Format, or PowerPoint software.”

“Contract reports and information/intellectual products can be submitted in either electronic (preferred) or paper form. Electronic documentation must comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”

“Descriptive information is required for all Contractor products submitted…In addition, all hard copy materials submitted in accordance with this clause must have, attached as a separate cover sheet, the name, organization, address, telephone number, fax number, and Internet address of the submitting party.”

Question # 12: Does USAID intend for all document/ deliverable submissions to be electronic, and for contractors to budget for Section 508 conversion for all documents that will be posted publicly?

Response: As stated in AIDAR 752.7005 contract reports may be submitted electronically to the Development Experience Clearinghouse and must comply with Section 508. It’s up to the offeror to budget the cost for 508 compliance.

RFP Reference: F.7.2 Annual Work Plans, F.7.10 Annual Performance and Financial Reports, F.8 Language of Reports and Other Outputs, and H.7 Language Requirements Page Number: 16, 19, 23, and 34 Relevant RFP Language:

“A brief, French language version of the work plan must also be submitted at the same time.”

“A French-language version of the annual report must also be submitted at the same time and.

[sic] Following the COR approval, the Contractor may share this French-language version with Guinean public and private stakeholders.”

“All reports and other outputs must be in the English language, unless otherwise specified.”

“All deliverables must be produced in English unless otherwise specified…. If any deliverables are provided in both English and a foreign language, then the English language version is the controlling version.”

Question #13: Could USAID confirm that contractors should budget to prepare complete, dual versions of the annual work plans and the annual reports in English and French? Does USAID anticipate any other documents with similar requirements that should be accommodated?

Response: USAID expects that English and French language versions of annual work plans and annual performance reports will be submitted and should budget accordingly.

RFP Reference: F.7.15 Branding Strategy and Marking Plan and L.8.2 Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal Page Number: 21 and 132 Relevant RFP Language:

“The Contractor must develop and submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan as described in Section D within thirty (30) calendar days after signature of the award. The BSMP must follow the template provided on J.4.”

“8. Annexes (not included in page limit)

iv. Draft Branding and Marking Plan”

Question # 14: Could USAID confirm that it wants only the successful contractor to submit a draft version of the Branding Strategy and Marking Plan, 30 calendar days after award?

Response: Per ADS 320.3.1.2 Pre-Award Procedures, USAID provides a branding strategy for inclusion in the RFP and is considered one of the annexes. Post-award, per F.7.15, the selected Contractor must submit a final branding/marking plan within 30 days after signature of the award.

SECTION H

Question # 15 - Per Section H.5(a) of the RFP, “All Cooperating Country Nationals (CCNS) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs) salaries must not exceed the Local Compensation Plan (LCP).

Approval of the Contractor’s budget does not absolve the Contractor’s duty to request and receive Mission Director’s approval prior to hiring CCN and TCN personnel whose salaries are above the LCP.” We respectfully request that the above mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2 (page 30), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.7007.

Response: Per AIDAR 722.170(b), salaries above prevailing compensation as determined by the USAID Mission (generally the Local Compensation Plan (LCP)), must be approved by the Mission Director (MD). This requirement is not a restriction, it is an approval process that is not mutually exclusive with instructions found in AIDAR 752.7007. The language in H.5(a) has been revised to note that MD approval is required if a proposed salary exceeds the LCP and clarification regarding salary and incentives that exceed the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold has been provided.

Question # 16 - Regarding Section H.5(a)1 on page 32, could USAID please confirm that a pay scale for employees would be due at the same time as a pay scale for consultants, which is listed as 90 days after award in Section H.5(e) on page 33?

Response: H.5 has been amended.

Question # 17- Section H.7 requires English proficiency and French language skills for all key personnel. Given that few Guinean professionals are proficient in English, this requirement could be a barrier to promoting local talent in senior leadership positions on the project. Would USAID therefore consider modifying this requirement to make English proficiency optional or desirable for all or most key personnel to ensure flexibility in promoting local leadership?

Response: Section H.7 has been updated. The COP and all key personnel that have direct reporting responsibilities to USAID must be proficient in English and in French. All other proposed local key personnel should be fluent in French and have a working knowledge of English.

Question # 18 - In Section H.7, Language Requirements, on page 34, the RFP states that “English proficiency in reading and writing is required for all Key Personnel.” In order to utilize local Guinean expertise, would USAID consider limiting its English language requirement to key personnel with direct USAID reporting responsibilities?

Response: See response to question # 17 above.

Question # 19 - Page 42, H.23.b Grants Under Contract. The RFP states that “USAID must be significantly involved in establishing the selection criteria and provide prior written approval of the recipients.” Could USAID clarify the envisioned GUC approval authorities for the CO and

COR?

Response: It is expected that the Contractor will submit a DRAFT GUC manual outlining the proposed implementation of the GUC program that incorporates selection criteria and the USAID approval process. Per ADS 302.3.4.13(c)(2), USAID may be significantly less involved when grants are at or below the micro-purchase threshold.

Question # 20 - In Section H.23(f), Grants Under Contract (GUCs) (page 42), the RFP states that “No Grants will be provided to partner Government entities,” and Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section 4.4, Limitation of the Scope (page 12), indicates that “no direct grants under the GIGA activity should be provided to local governments.” While it is understood that cash grants cannot be provided to partner government entities, could USAID clarify whether the activity can provide in-kind grants to government entities?

Response: No grants (cash or in-kind) will be awarded to partner government entities under this contract.

Question # 21 - Section H.23(g) of the RFP states that all grants under GIGA will be cost reimbursable or fixed amount grants. Could USAID clarify whether in-kind grants to local organizations are allowable?

Response: Per ADS 302.3.4.13(d), GUCs may be provided as cost reimbursement or fixed amount. If in-kind grants will be considered, the contractor will submit a request to the CO for a determination.

Question # 22 - Could USAID please modify the language in section H.23(g), which states “All grants issued will be cost reimbursement or fixed amount grants” to match the language in ADS 302.3.4.13, which states “GUCs may be provided as cost-reimbursement or fixed amount grants”?

Response: H.23(g) has been updated and see question 21 above.

Question # 23 - Section H.23(i) of the RFP states, "The contractor will be required to develop the capacity of the sub-recipients to make them eligible for a direct award from USAID or other donors in the future.” In light of the possibility of supporting up to 50 grantees and the nascent state of some potential sub-recipients, would USAID consider rephrasing this requirement to read, “The contractor will provide capacity-strengthening support to sub-recipients to improve eligibility for a direct award from USAID or other donors in the future”?

Response: The sentence will remain unchanged.

SECTION I

Question # 24- Section I.1 on page 48 includes FAR 52.237-8, Restriction on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals (Aug 2003); however, the local labor code requires the payment of severance to eligible employees. Would USAID please consider removing this clause in Section I.1?

Response: FAR 52.237-8 provision has language that allows a waiver due to local law requirements. The provision will remain in effect.

SECTION J

ATTACHMENT J.1 – Statement of Objective (SOO)

Question # 25 - On page 8 of the Statement of Objectives (Section 3.2), USAID specifies that the implementer must achieve the following targets: “Two mechanisms are established to decrease the payment of bribes for administrative services in the target municipalities” and “A minimum of five stringent measures to combat corruption and fraud are developed.” Could USAID clarify the difference between “a mechanism to decrease the payment of bribes ”and “stringent measures to combat corruption”?

Response: In the context of the SOO, a mechanism is a strategy to prevent the payment of bribes for administrative services in the target municipalities. Measures are steps taken to combat corruption and fraud.

Question # 26 - Page 8, Statement of Objectives, 3.2 Description of Objectives. The RFP states, “At least three local development plans and projects per year encompassing the sectors of healthcare, education, and economic development in beneficiary municipalities are successfully designed and executed.” Can USAID clarify whether these are three plans per each sector or three plans in total?

Response: USAID is expecting three plans in total that includes at least one project per sector per year, starting in year 2.

Question # 27- Page 8, Statement of Objectives, 3.2 Description of Objectives. The RFP states, “Annually, up to two public-private partnerships or private sector engagement activities in healthcare, education, and economic development are implemented in target municipalities.

Can USAID clarify whether these are two plans per sector, per year, or two plans in total?

Response: USAID expects two public-private partnerships or private sector engagement activities per sector, per year, starting in year 2. That is a total of 6.

Question # 28 - On page 9 of the Statement of Objectives (Section 3.2), USAID provides the following illustrative outcome for Objective Two: “Citizens’ recommendations from opinion polls on availability, access, quality and quantity of services in health, education, and economic growth are gathered and included in local development plans and implemented.” This outcome limits citizen inputs to those provide in polls. Would USAID consider taking out the reference to polls to provide more flexibility to offerors in identifying citizen priorities?

Response: The sentence remains unchanged.

Question # 29 - On page 10 of the Statement of Objectives (Section 3.2), USAID states, “For each objective, USAID expects the Offeror to draw a causal model that demonstrates how the GIGA Outputs/Outcomes, results, and impacts will be reached.” Could USAID clarify whether this requirement comes in addition to the requirement under L.8.2.3 to include a results framework in the PWS or if the results framework satisfies the requirement?

Response: The causal model is different from the results framework.

Question # 30 - SOO Section 3.2, Description of Objectives, on page 10, instructs offerors to draw causal models for each objective to demonstrate how GIGA outputs/outcomes, results, and impacts will be reached. RFP Section L.8.2.3, Performance Work Statement (PWS), on page 133, states that “The PWS must also include a result framework, and provide a table with proposed indicators, method of measurement, and annual targets for each indicator.” Can USAID confirm that the terms “causal model” and “results framework” are being used interchangeably and that offerors are not to include these as two separate elements in their proposals?

If USAID clarifies that both causal models and a results framework are required with the technical proposal submission, please confirm that offerors may present them in an annex that does not count against the 20-page technical proposal limit.

Response: See Response to question 29 above. This requirement remains within the page limitation.

Question # 31 - On page 10 of the Statement of Objectives (Section 4.1), USAID states that offerors must “assemble a database of municipalities with data on selected eligibility criteria.”

Could USAID please advise offerors if the database should be provided as part of the proposal? If yes, kindly let us know how many municipalities should be included in the database and where it should be included in the proposal.

Response: USAID expects the offerors to propose and define eligibility criteria for selecting municipalities and not submit database information. The number of municipalities will depend on and be included in the offeror’s performance work statement.

Question # 32 - Statement of Objectives (Section 4.3) Impact Evaluation. We fully support USAID’s intention to ensure that an external evaluator rigorously evaluates GIGA to assess and understand the Activity’s impact in Guinea. However, we are concerned that, as proposed, the evaluation may be difficult to implement in the current volatile Guinean context. Specifically, USAID’s requirement that implementers maintain “implementation fidelity” starting at the end of Year 2 appears to assume that the country context will be stable enough for implementers to no longer need to make major changes to their implementation strategies. In light of these concerns—as well as the inability to control for external factors like upcoming elections—would USAID reevaluate the requirement for a randomized controlled trial of project activities, and instead consider other forms of rigorous impact evaluation?

Response: The external impact evaluation as stated in the SOO will remain.

Question # 33 - Page 11, Attachment J.1, Statement of Objectives, 4.3 Impact Evaluation. The RFP discusses the selection of 50 municipalities for GIGA interventions. Can USAID elaborate on expectations for implementation timing in all 50 municipalities to inform the evaluation process?

Response: On page 11, “Selection of Municipalities” it is stated: “ At least 100 municipalities should be identified as eligible for treatment and the tested intervention should occur in an expected 50 randomly-selected municipalities during the evaluation period. The evaluation period might run for the remainder of the intervention or for a set period (e.g., Years Two and Three). If the latter occurs, municipalities identified as control could receive interventions in subsequent years. In addition, the Contractor is not restricted from operating in more than the pre-pilot and 50 treatment locations.”

RFP Reference: 4.1 Geographical coverage Page Number: SOO p. 10 Relevant RFP Language:

“The Offeror should propose and define measurable eligibility criteria for the municipalities selection for the GIGA intervention and assemble a database of municipalities with data on selected eligibility criteria.”

Question # 34: Given the large number of municipalities involved, the proposal due date of 15 March 2024, and the specified page limits: Could USAID confirm that the database of municipalities with data on selected eligibility criteria is to be assembled post-award in consultation with USAID rather than as part of the Offeror’s proposal?

Response: USAID expects the offerors to propose and define eligibility criteria for selecting municipalities and not submit database information.

RFP Reference: 4.8 Grants Under Contract (GUCs) Page Number: SOO, p. 13 Relevant RFP Language: “The local grants will support the following areas of work:”

Question # 35: Could USAID please allow additional flexibility for Offerors to propose a GUC plan that matches their proposed approach, Guinea’s fluid and regionally-diverse environment, and allows for adjustment following the impact evaluation?

Response: The offeror’s GUC plan must follow the areas of work as indicated in the SOO, Section 4.8 and note that USAID does not anticipate any GUCs under CLIN 002.

ATTACHMENT J.5

Question # 36 - Attachment J.5, Past Performance Information, limits the Project Description field to 200 words. However, Section L.8.2, Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal, Annexes, Past Performance Sheets, on page 133, states that each Past Performance Sheet has a three-page limit. Please clarify the requirements for the length of Past Performance Sheets to be submitted.

Response: Attachment J.5 has been updated. Past performance sheets are limited to 3 pages each.

ATTACHMENT J.8

Question # 37 - Attachment J.8, Summary Local Compensation Plan (LCP) Salary, on page 99, lists an exchange rate of 1 USD = 8,522.07 GNF; however, the USD equivalents in the table use a different exchange rate (1 USD = 8,676.64 GNF). Could USAID please clarify whether the LCP is denominated in GNF or in USD? Additionally, please confirm that offerors may calculate the GNF or USD equivalents based on a current exchange rate.

Response: Attachment J.8 has been updated. Guinea local compensation plan is denominated in GNF. As all costs in the cost proposal must be presented in US dollars, the Offeror must provide the exchange rate used to convert local cost to USD.

SECTION L

Question # 38 - Sections L.7 and L.8 refer to a cover and title page but Sections L.8.1 and L.8.2 refer to a cover letter. Please confirm that offerors may include a cover page with the required information and a transmittal/cover letter with required information, both of which do not count toward the technical proposal page limit.

Response: Please note that for consistency “Cover Letter” under L.8.1. and L.8.2.1 has been corrected to read “Cover Page”. If the Offeror opts for a transmittal letter, it will not count toward the page limitation.

Question # 39 - Section L.8.1(a)(3) on page 131 references a technical proposal cover letter, but Section L.8.2 on page 132 lists the first item to be included as a cover page. Please clarify whether offerors should include a cover letter or a cover page with their technical proposals.

Response: Please see response to question 38 above.

Question # 40 - On page 132, USAID states: In section L.8.2., USAID states that “The Offeror must structure their technical proposal in the order shown below…Past Performance (Offeror and International/Local Sub-Offerors) (not included in page limit)” In section L.8.2, as part of the annexes, on page 133, USAID states that offerors must include “Past Performance Sheets (for template See Attachment J.5) (Offeror and International/Local Sub-Offerors) (3 pages each).”

Can USAID please confirm that it is requesting only past performance sheets as part of an annex and not as part of the technical proposal?

Response: Past performance is an annex which is part of the Technical Proposal.

Question # 41 - On page 132, under section L.8.2., USAID states that Offerors must structure their technical proposal in the order shown below: 1. Cover Page (not included in page limit).

On page 133, under section L.8.2.1., USAID states that Offerors must include a cover letter instead.

Will USAID please confirm that Offerors must include a cover page that includes the information listed under L.8.2.1. as well as a cover letter?

Response: Please see response to question 38 above.

Question # 42 - On page 132, Section L.8.2., under Annexes, USAID requires that Offerors "propose a staffing plan that includes a narrative and a matrix of the skill sets, and number of staff needed to implement the Contract and how this team will support the achievement of the program objectives.”

On page 134, Section L.8.2.4. STAFFING, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY, USAID requires that Offerors discuss Key Personnel, as well as “provide brief summaries of the qualifications, roles and responsibilities of other full-time technical professional staff.”

Will USAID please confirm that Offerors should provide narrative information regarding staffing in the Staffing, Organizational Structure, and Organizational Capacity section of the technical proposal only? Will USAID please confirm that the two-page Staffing Plan annex should only include a matrix of staffing skill sets?

Response: Yes, USAID expects the narrative to cover the elements described in L.8.2.4 Staffing, Organizational Structure, and Organizational Capacity section; while the Staffing Plan Matrix will show the skill sets and the number of staff needed to implement the contract per L.8.2(9).(ii).

Question # 43 - Section L.8.2. Please confirm that all required past performance information is to be included in the technical annexes.

Response: Please see response to question 40 above.

Question # 44 - Section L.8.2 specifies that Past Performance Sheets are not to exceed three pages each, yet the instructions on Attachment J.5. limit row 7c, project description, to 200 words. Would USAID please confirm that no word limit exists on row 7c, allowing offerors to expand on past performance up to the three-page limit?

Response: Please see response to question 36 above.

Question # 45 - Regarding Section L.8.2.1 on page 133, could USAID please confirm that the major subcontractor threshold is 10 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost, inclusive of CLINs 001 and 002?

Response: Section L.8.2.1 has been updated. Subcontractors whose proposed cost exceed 10% of the Offeror’s CLIN 001 total proposed cost are considered to be major subcontractors.

RFP Reference: L.8.2.2.

Page Number: 133

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Not to exceed 1 page) (does not count against the page limitation)”

Question # 46: Could USAID please allow offerors two pages for the Executive Summary?

Response: L.8.2.2. Executive Summary has been updated to allow up to 2 pages which do not count against the page limitation.

Question # 47 - Section L.8.2.3. Would USAID allow offerors to provide the result framework and table with proposed indicators, method of measurement, and annual targets for each indicator as an annex given the 20-page limit?

Response: Please see responses to questions 29 and 30 above.

Question # 48- Page 133, L.8.2.3 Performance Work Statement (PWS). Format and Presentation of the Technical Proposal. Section L instructions for the PWS (paragraph 2) includes reference to an ‘illustrative QASP’ suggesting that the QASP should be part of and included in the PWS.

While the PWS and QASP must align to one another, we submit that per FAR Subpart 46.4 and FAR Subpart 37.602 the PWS and QASP are separate deliverables. Please confirm that the QASP should only be included as its own annex (per list of annexes, page 132) and not part of the 15-page Performance Work Statement (as currently noted on page 133).

Response: The illustrative QASP shall be submitted as an annex which will not count towards the page limitation.

Question # 49 - On page 133, under section L.8.2.3., USAID states that “The Offerors must also include an illustrative Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (See Attachment J.6 QASP Template).”

Will USAID please confirm that Offerors should include an illustrative QASP as an annex rather than in the Performance Work Statement?

Response: Please see response to question 48 above.

Question # 50- Section L.8.2.5, Past Performance, on page 135, instructs offerors to “List in an Annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) (for both the Offeror and major subcontractor(s) of the most recent (no more than 5 years old) and relevant awards for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal (Use Attachment J.5).” Please clarify whether offerors should submit up to five Past Performance References for the prime and up to five for each major subcontractor or submit five awards in total for the prime and major subcontractors.

Response: Offeror must submit up to five past performance in total for prime and major subcontractors.

Question # 51- Section L.9, Part 2(2) on Fee Schedule states, “From the agreed upon total fixed fee, $100,000 will be withheld for final settlement. The remainder will be divided by the number of months in the award (est. 60) and paid in equal installments when invoiced.” The specified method of payment for the remainder of fee is inconsistent with the payment of Fixed Fee as outlined in Section B.3 which states that the fixed fee under CLIN 001 will be tied to the conditions and completion of deliverables specified in Section F.6. Would USAID please revise Section L.9 accordingly to indicate that the remainder of fee will be paid according to the fixed fee deliverables table?

Response: See response to question 3 above as Section B.3.c has been updated.

Question # 52 - Regarding Section L.9(f)—Part 2(3), Detailed Home Office Budget, on page 137, could USAID please clarify what factor(s) differentiate(s) a home office cost from an in-country cost? For instance, if a short-term expatriate consultant travels to Guinea to complete a two-week assignment and their consultant rate and air travel are paid from the home office, do those count as home office or in-country costs?

Response: Section L.9(f) has been updated to delete that distinction.

Question # 53 - Regarding Sections L.9(f)—Part 2(3) and (4) on page 137, could USAID please confirm that offerors should provide two detailed budgets—one with home office costs and one with in-country costs—without a detailed budget inclusive of all proposed costs?

Response: See response to question 52 above, only one detailed budget inclusive of all proposed costs is being requested.

Question # 54 - Section L.9, Part 2(3) and Part 2(4) requires offerors to provide a Detailed Home Office Budget and Detailed Country Budgets. Can USAID please confirm it is acceptable for offerors to provide this information in one consolidated Detailed Budget tab together with other costs associated with implementing the proposed technical approach, provided the Detailed Budget clearly indicates these specific costs within the tab?

Response: See response to question 52 above.

Question # 55 - Regarding Section L.9(f)—Part 2(7)I.H on page 139, could USAID please confirm that offerors should provide only a description of illustrative grant activities in the budget narrative, as the contractor will select grantees via a competitive process during the life of the activity?

Response: Offeror can propose a GUCs budget not to exceed $3,000,000, and in the budget narrative provide any information that may help clarify important elements of the program.

USAID will not provide a plug figure or lump sum for the GUCs portion.

Question # 56 - Section L.9 states, “Narrative information supporting how those funds will be distributed among the proposed group of grantees is required. In order for USAID to assess the reasonableness of the proposed GUCs, the Offeror must provide the basis for the proposed estimates. USAID is expecting detailed budget breakdowns for each proposed grantee indicating description of activities, estimated unit costs, and total estimated amount for each grant.” As the successful offeror will submit a GUC manual 45 days after the contract start date, which details the process for identifying, reviewing, negotiating, awarding, and monitoring grant activities, could USAID confirm that a plug figure may be included in the proposal submission as the grantee competition and selection process will be initiated after award and in coordination with USAID, as described in 4.8 of the statement of objectives?

Response: Please see response to question 55 above.

Question # 57 - Section L.9, Part 2(7)(I)(H) on Grants under Contract states, “USAID is expecting detailed budget breakdowns for each proposed grantee indicating description of activities, estimated unit costs, and total estimated amount for each grant.” As grants will be awarded during implementation through a competitive process that will entail negotiations with selected grantees on the specific activities to be funded, and corresponding detailed budgets, it is not feasible to determine this level of detail at the proposal stage. Would USAID kindly consider removing this requirement from the solicitation and instead allow offerors to provide information on illustrative grantees, activities, and high-level estimates of individual grants?

Response: Please see response to question 55 above.

Question # 58 - On pages 141 and 142, under section L.9.2.II. CLIN 002, USAID has requested that Offerors propose labor costs for “the above listed categories, supported by daily rates and specified labor escalation, with supporting documentation.”

Will USAID please confirm that “the above listed categories” refer to categories of USN, TCN, and CCN?

Alternatively, is USAID referring to “the above listed categories” as budget categories (e.g., Short-Term Technical Assistance, Allowances, Travel and Transportation, Supplies and Equipment, Subcontracts, Other Direct Costs)? Will USAID also please confirm that it does not expect Offerors to include Grants Under Contract under CLIN 002?

Response: This section refers to RFTOPs that may be issued under the Supplemental Technical Assistance portion. Please note that per section L.9.2.II. CLIN 002, “For the Supplemental Technical Assistance portion, the Offeror must set aside an amount not to exceed ten (10) percent of the proposed Total Estimated Cost to cover Task Orders to be potentially issued under the IDIQ contract”. USAID will not/NOT provide a plug figure or lump sum for the Supplemental Technical Assistance portion.

Upon issuance of the RFTOP, the contractor will be provided instructions on how to present their technical and cost proposal. USAID does not expect any GUCs under CLIN 002.

Question # 59 - Section L.9, Part 2(7)(II). RFP instructions under CLIN 002 state that the offeror must include sufficient detail in its cost proposal to support and explain all costs proposed, including, for example, labor costs which the RFP says, “should be proposed for the above listed categories.” Assuming the “above listed categories” is meant to refer to labor categories, and since no such categories are indicated in the RFP, can USAID please clarify the instructions, providing labor category descriptions and requirements, and/or remove the reference to the “above listed categories”?

Response: Please see response to question 58 above.

Question # 60 - In Section L.9, Part 2(7)(II), the RFP indicates that CLIN 002 could include labor costs. Furthermore, RFP Section B.6 Level of Effort (CLIN 002) states that the Contractor is obligated to provide the required level of effort to complete activities under CLIN 002.

Therefore, to account for any proposed labor costs under CLIN 002, would USAID please revise the Contract Budget and Ceilings under Section B.4 so that the table for CLIN 002 includes a line item for Direct Costs (as opposed to just Other Direct Costs as currently stated), to accommodate the inclusion of labor and/or other line items the offeror might deem necessary, but which would not fall under the “Other Direct Costs” line?

Response: Please see response to question 58 above.

Question # 61 - Section L.9, Part 2(7)(II). Could USAID please provide a plug figure for travel for

CLIN 002?

Response: A plug figure for travel under CLIN 002 is not provided. Please see response to question 52 above.

Question # 62 - Regarding Section L.9(f)—Part 2(7)II on pages 141 and 142, could USAID please clarify the cost proposal requirements for CLIN 002? The second sentence of the second paragraph references “above listed categories” for labor costs, but the RFP does not include a list of labor categories. Similarly, the RFP does not specify an LOE ceiling for CLIN 002. Kindly clarify whether a detailed budget is required for CLIN 002 or whether offerors may include a single line item in their budget for CLIN 002, which represents 10 percent of the proposed total estimated cost.

Response: Please see response to question 58 above.

Question # 63 - Page 141, L.9, Part 2(7)II), Instructions for Preparation of Cost Proposal, CLIN

002. The RFP indicates that offerors must provide detailed budget information for CLIN 002, including labor costs, indirect costs, and fee. As determinations regarding the nature of task orders and negotiations on their associated fee will take place after the project is awarded, could USAID clarify whether they would like offerors to budget CLIN 002 as a lump sum without detail or to illustratively budget for CLIN 002 and assume that the entire amount will be used for task orders?

Response: Please see response to question 58 above.

Question # 64 - Page 141, L.9, part 2(7)H, Instructions for Preparation of Cost Proposal, CLIN

002. The RFP indicates that offerors must provide detailed budget breakdowns for each proposed grantee indicating description of activities, estimated unit costs, and total estimated amount for each grant. Could USAID clarify whether offerors can present a grant pool line (as opposed to a detailed line for each grantee at the proposal stage) with the expectation that specific grants would be submitted to USAID for approval during the project implementation phase?

Response: Please see response to question 55 above.

Question # 65 - Section L.9, Part 4 requires offerors to submit policies and procedures for personnel, travel, and procurement administration. As these policies can be quite lengthy and entail hundreds of pages being included in the cost proposal, would USAID please consider only requiring this information for offerors that do not have prior federal contracting experience?

Response: Please note that policies for personnel, travel and procurement administration, etc., may be requested of the offeror(s) included in the competitive range.

RFP Reference: L.9.e INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF COST PROPOSAL Page Number: 136.

“… major subcontractors (whose proposed cost exceeds 10 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost)”

Question # 66: Given that potential subcontractor costs under CLIN 002 cannot be accurately estimated until RFTOPs are issued under that CLIN, could USAID please confirm that the calculation to determine if a subcontractor exceeds 10 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost and can be considered major is based on the proposed subcontractor’s CLIN 001 budget as a percentage of the total CLIN 001 proposed cost?

Response: Please see response to question 40.

RFP Reference: L.9.Part 2(7)I.A. I. CLIN 001 G. Subcontracts Page Number: 138 Relevant RFP Language:

“Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long- and short-term personnel (US nationals, cooperating country nationals (CCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs). Narratives must provide a discussion of the estimated annual escalation of all salaries where applicable.”

Question # 67: Could USAID please confirm that these data sheets will be required upon award and are not required for submission during the proposal stage?

Response: In the proposal stage, biographical data sheets are required for key personnel only.

RFP Reference: I. CLIN 001.H Page Number: 139 Relevant RFP Language:

“In order for USAID to assess the reasonableness of the proposed GUCs, the Offeror must provide the basis for the proposed estimates. USAID is expecting detailed budget breakdowns for each proposed grantee indicating description of activities, estimated unit costs, and total estimated amount for each grant.”

Question # 68: Could USAID please confirm that proposed grantees will be identified and detailed budget breakdowns will be provided during implementation rather than during the proposal stage?

Response: Please see response to questions 49 and 52.

RFP Reference: L.9 Part 2 II. CLIN 002 Page Number: 141-142

"For the Supplemental Technical Assistance Portion, the Offeror must set aside an amount not to exceed ten (10) percent of the proposed Total Estimated Cost to cover Task Orders to be potentially issued under the IDIQ Contract. The Offeror must include in its cost proposal sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed, giving figures and narrative explanation. For example, labor costs should be proposed for the above listed categories supported by daily rates and specified labor escalation, with supporting documentation. All proposed indirect rates must be consistent with those proposed in CLIN 001"

Question # 69: Given that CLIN 002 costs cannot be reasonably estimated in any detail until RFTOPs are issued under that CLIN, and to ensure parity among offers, could USAID please confirm that offerors should budget a plug figure for CLIN 002 costs of 10% of their proposed Total Estimated Cost, rather than providing a detailed breakdown of CLIN 002 costs?

Response: Please see response to questions 49 and 52.

Question # 70: Should Offerors budget for VAT or will USAID be providing a protocol for refunds or exemptions?

Response: USAID development assistance is exempt from VAT, after signature of the award, USAID/Guinea will provide the name of the GIGA implementer to the Government of Guinea for tax and customs exempt purposes.

SECTION M

Question # 71 - Page 145, M.2.1.b Technical Evaluation Criteria – Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation criteria for the PWS letter “b” references an “illustrative QASP” as one of the criterion. While the PWS and QASP must align to one another, we submit that per FAR Subpart 46.4 and FAR Subpart 37.602 the PWS and QASP are separate deliverables. We respectfully request the removal of this evaluation criterion for the PWS or alternately to include it as its own criterion for the QASP annex separate from the PWS.

Response: Please refer to response to question 42. The RFP is amended to include the QASP as an annex and not a part of the PWS.