ES QA 5.20.2026.pdf

U.S. International Development Finance Corp

Environmental and Social (E&S) Support Services IDIQ

Solicitation Number: 77344426R0005

Question and Answers

Q1: Management costs. To inform development of labor rates: Does DFC anticipate awarding a TO that would cover overall IDIQ management costs, e.g., kick-off meeting, engagement with the CO/COR on contract-level issues, and required monthly invoice and status reporting? If yes, would this TO also cover reasonable costs for responding to subsidiary RTOQs?

A1: There will not be a management task order. Proposal costs will not be reimbursed. However, offerors can include overhead in the fully burdened rates proposed.

Q2: Indirect costs and travel. RFP Section C.12.1 (p 19) states that “Handling rates shall not be applied to travel costs,” and C.18 (p 22) states that travel costs “shall be billed at cost without markup.” Please clarify whether indirect costs per approved NICRA or established accounting practices may be applied to travel costs.

A2: Travel is billed at cost only, no additional NICRA or overheads are applicable.

Q3: Fees in IDIQ Price Workbook. The summary sheet includes a total “with fees” column that applies a 3% fee to total annual costs imported from the base and option year sheets. As labor rates are fully burdened and fees are not allowed on travel costs, is this column included in error? If not, can you please clarify inclusion of this fee?

A3: See updated price spreadsheet via amendment 1. The fees column has been removed.

Q4: Labor categories. Would DFC consider adding labor categories for other proposed roles, e.g., program manager, administrative support, host country professionals, etc. to enhance pricing transparency and associated evaluation?

A4: DFC will not add any additional labor categories for proposals.

Q5: Small Business Subcontracting. RFP Section L— EVALUATION FACTORS—DFC.023 ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 & 52.212-2—D. Contract Documents (p 58) requires submission of a “small business subcontracting outline” as part of the proposal. Can DFC clarify that this requirement does NOT apply to small business bidders?

A5: The small business subcontracting outline and the signed copies of amendments requirements have been removed via Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q6: Proposal Guidance. To enhance bid comparison, would DFC consider stipulating a page limit and font size or word count limit for core sections of the technical proposal?

A6: See Solicitation Amendment 1. All proposals shall be single spaced and in Times New Roman 10 font. With the below limits:

Contract Documents: 2 Pages Price: Price Workbook and 1 Page for Narrative Technical: 30 Pages Past Performance: 5 Pages

Q7: Per page 59 of the solicitation, Relevant Corporate Experience includes “experience supporting DFIs and/or MDBs”. Can DFC please confirm whether experience with U.S. Government donor agencies and other bi-lateral donors (ex. Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office), which operate under comparable environmental and social requirements, may be considered equivalent to experience with DFIs and MDBs for purposes of the solicitation evaluation criteria?

A7: Offerors should submit proposals in accordance with the solicitation. As stated in the SOW, relevant experience includes experience supporting DFIs, MDBs, or similar institutions in providing environmental and social risk management support consistent with DFC’s ESPP, the IFC Performance Standards, relevant international good practices, and applicable U.S. Government requirements.

Experience with U.S. Government donor agencies or other bilateral donors may be considered relevant where the offeror demonstrates that such experience is comparable in scope, complexity, and relevance to the work required under the solicitation, including application of environmental and social requirements comparable to those identified in the SOW. However, DFC is not confirming that such experience is automatically equivalent to DFI/MDB experience in all cases. Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the solicitation as issued.

Q8: Industry day participants. Can DFC please provide a list of participants from the virtual industry day with organizational affiliations?

A8: A list of industry day attendees is not available for distribution.

Q9: Award ceiling. During the industry day, DFC stated that the award ceiling would be a $2MM/yr annual maximum, with a maximum total of $10MM over 5 yrs. Can you please provide clarification on if/how a higher ceiling can be awarded than what may result from the Price Workbook response?

A9: See Solicitation Amendment 1. The award ceiling has been increased to a total of $12,500,000.00.

Q10: Additional labor categories. To enhance pricing transparency and cost-effectiveness to the government, will DFC consider adding the following labor categories (or similar): Program Manager, E&S Specialist 2 (20+ years of relevant experience), Jr. E&S Specialist (less than 5 years of experience), and QC Specialist?

A10: Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with the solicitation as issued. The solicitation currently identifies the applicable labor categories and required experience levels for this requirement, and offerors should use those categories in preparing proposals.

Q11: Past performance vs current capabilities. Given large reductions in force across the US foreign assistance/international development contractor sector over the past year, how will DFC assess the extent to which past performance reflects actual current capabilities of bidders and is therefore relevant?

A11: Relevant past performance is typically referred to as having similar or same scope and magnitude of effort that is being solicited.

Q12: Non-US subcontractors. Can DFC advise whether non-US organizational subcontractors are permitted?

A12: Yes, non-US subcontractors are allowed.

Q13: We respectfully request a 2-week extension of the proposal deadline to June 4th, 2026.

A13: See Solicitation Amendment 1, an extension has been issued.

Q14: Section L – Evaluation Factors, D. Contract Documents, Item 11 states offerors are to submit a “Small Business Subcontracting Outline with appropriate fill-ins. Offerors may provide its firm's subcontracting plan in lieu of the outline provided by DFC.” We kindly request the DFC to indicate where this outline may be found.

A14: See A5.

Q15: Section L – Evaluation Factors, FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, E. Price, The Excel spreadsheet is pre-populated with travel costs. Can DFC kindly confirm the types of travel costs that are included in this line item (e.g., airfares, ground transportation, visas, per diem), so that we can ensure any additional costs not covered under this line are budgeted separately?

A15: Travel costs approved in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) are reimbursable.

Q16: Section L – Evaluation Factors, FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, E. Price, The Excel spreadsheet allows for additional costs for equipment, software, materials, or other direct costs. Does DFC expect offerors to estimate these costs for typical assignments, or would DFC prefer offerors to omit these additional costs to facilitate price analysis based solely on labor rates? Related to the above question on travel costs, should offerors include additional travel-related costs (e.g., DBA) that are not budgeted under the travel line item?

A16: For price analysis, only the fully burdened labor rates and pre-populated travel amounts will be used. Other direct costs will not be allowed, unless negotiated on an as-needed basis at the task order level. See the updated price workbook.

Q17: Section L – Evaluation Factors, FAR 52.212-2 Addendum, E. Price, This section indicates the DFC will conduct a price analysis on the three ceiling hourly rates provided and price narratives. Does DFC have any requirement for the content of the price narrative or other guidance for this element?

A17: There are no specific requirements for the optional price narrative. However, the offeror shall submit a price narrative explaining the pricing approach for future task orders and any other pricing explanations worth noting.

Q18: Section L – Evaluation Factors, FAR 52.212-2 Addendum, E. Price, Page 60, This section states that annual escalation rates will be evaluated to determine balanced pricing. Does DFC have any guidance on escalation rates or preferred indices, or are offerors expected to propose annual escalation rates?

A18: Offerors are to propose their own escalation rates, which are identified by the difference in rates proposed for outyears.

Q19: Assumptions and Dependencies, Proposal Requirements, Please define the make-up of the core team in terms of evaluation purposes.

A19: This section has been removed. See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q20: Section C - Description/Specifications, 5. Task Ordering & Labor Hours, Page 17, We request DFC to consider adding a labor category for administrative and project management support. This will ensure that rates for the three technical labor categories are reflective of only that technical expertise and not be loaded to recover other project management/administrative support costs. The financial structure of bidders may not allow for recovery of these costs through overhead in other labor rates, as these are directly allocable to project activities and must be directly charged to the project. This will also facilitate the comparison of technical rates across bidders.

A20: See A4.

Q21: C - Description/Specifications, Evaluation Criteria, Page 24, For the Past Performance evaluation factor, will DFC consider past performance of proposed subcontractors and key personnel, in addition to the prime offeror's corporate past performance?

A21: See Solicitation Amendment 1. This section has been removed. However, the offeror may submit up to three past performance information for subcontractors.

Q22: C - Description/Specifications, 1. Background, Page 14 What is DFC's anticipated annual volume of Task Orders under this IDIQ, and what is the expected peak number of simultaneous active TOs across the seven SOW task areas?

A22: Task Order demand will vary based on DFC’s transaction pipeline, project-specific risk, and the timing and complexity of assignments; individual Task Orders will define the required scope, deliverables, estimated hours, schedule, and budget.

Q23: The RFP emphasizes "rapid mobilization and concurrent support across multiple assignments" but provides no volume estimates. Even directional information would help all offerors right-size their bench, surge capacity, and pricing approach.

A23: See A22.

Q24: L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders, Example Task Scenario, Page 59 For the Example Task Scenario lithium mining memo, what level of detail does DFC expect within the 5–8 page recommended length?

Should offerors prioritize breadth across all six prompts or analytical depth on a subset? And is this scenario evaluated as a separate scoring element or as part of the existing technical subfactors?

A24: DFC expects the Example Task Scenario response to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to synthesize complex environmental and social issues into a concise, well-structured memorandum, consistent with the types of deliverables contemplated under this requirement, such as screening memos, due diligence reports, gap analyses, and concise technical memoranda. Within the recommended 5–8 page length, offerors should address all prompts in a balanced manner, while exercising judgment on the level of detail based on risk significance and materiality. As reflected in DFC’s SOW and ESPP, the expected level of detail should be commensurate with the nature, size, and risk profile of the project, rather than providing exhaustive treatment of every issue. The offeror will receive an overall technical rating, which will include the assessment of the task scenario.

Q25: C - Description/Specifications, Evaluation Criteria, Page 24, Will DFC weight or differentiate past performance based on whether the prior work was DFI/MDB-funded versus other federal or commercial work (e.g., USAID, MCC, EPA, World Bank, IFC)?

A25: Past Performance will consider relevancy when determining the overall Past Performance Rating.

Q26: C - Description/Specifications, 1. Background, Page 14, What does DFC consider an acceptable mobilization timeline for typical Task Orders — is it days, a week, or longer? Does this vary by task type (screening, due diligence, site visit)?

A26: DFC does not set a single fixed mobilization timeline for all Task Orders; instead, assignments are described as time-sensitive, and each Task Order will specify its own scope, schedule, deliverables, and staffing requirements. In general, DFC expects rapid mobilization, with the clearest contract-wide benchmark being a kick-off meeting within five business days of award, while travel-related or site-visit work may require longer lead time because advance written authorization and travel estimates are required.

Q27: C - Description/Specifications, 1. Background, Page 14, For Task Orders requiring international site visits, what is DFC's typical advance-notice window, and how does DFC weigh in-country presence versus mobilization from the U.S.?

A27: DFC does not establish a single standard advance-notice window for international site visits in the SOW.

Rather, travel must be approved in writing in advance by the CO or COR, travel estimates must be submitted before scheduling, and the specific scope, schedule, and budget for travel are to be defined in the applicable Task Order;

accordingly, offerors should assume notice will vary based on project needs, risk, logistics, and country conditions.

With respect to staffing approach, DFC does not state a preference for in-country presence versus mobilization from the United States as a standalone requirement. The SOW instead emphasizes timely, task-specific performance, the ability to mobilize qualified personnel on demand, and use of personnel with the necessary local language capability and expertise for the assignment; for site visits, DFC will evaluate the proposed approach based on its suitability to the Task Order requirements rather than point of origin alone.

Q28: Are there specific geographies or sectors where DFC expects elevated Task Order volume over the next 1–2 years that offerors should account for in their proposals?

A28: DFC is not establishing fixed Task Order volumes by geography or sector under this solicitation; demand will depend on DFC’s transaction pipeline, evolving priorities, and the environmental and social risk profile of specific assignments. As reflected in the SOW, offerors should be prepared to support a range of sectors and services on a task-order basis, including screening, due diligence, monitoring, thematic reviews, and sector-specific analysis, with flexibility to deploy qualified personnel where DFC is authorized to work, including travel as required.

Q29: C - Description/Specifications, 1. Background, Page 14, The SOW lists eight named sectors. Does DFC expect a single Contractor team to demonstrate full coverage across all of them, or is sector-by-sector specialization through SMEs acceptable?

A29: DFC does not require that a single core team individually demonstrate deep expertise across every named sector. Offerors should demonstrate the ability to provide qualified personnel for each Task Order and maintain access to a range of subject matter experts, including sector-specific SMEs, as needed to support assignments across the sectors identified in the SOW.

Q30: H - Special Contract Requirements, H.7 Conflict of Interest, Page 34 Section H.7 prohibits the Contractor from simultaneously working for DFC and a project sponsor on the same project. How does DFC define "same project” at the sponsor entity level, the specific transaction level, or the asset level? How should offerors handle pre-existing relationships disclosed in advance?

A30: DFC has not identified, in the materials provided, a further formal definition of “same project” at the sponsor-entity, transaction, or asset level. Based on the SOW language, the restriction is tied to work “for DFC” and “for the client on the same project,” and offerors should therefore interpret it conservatively to mean the same underlying DFC-supported project or assignment for which DFC is seeking E&S support, rather than assuming the limitation applies only at a narrower corporate level.

For any pre-existing or current relationships that could present an actual or apparent organizational conflict of interest, offerors should disclose them fully in advance to the Contracting Officer and identify the affected client/project, the nature of the work, and any proposed mitigation or recusal approach. The SOW states that the contractor will be required to sign confidentiality agreements, avoid simultaneous work for DFC and the client on the same project, and obtain Task Order-specific approvals and direction through DFC’s contracting officials; more generally, FAR Subpart 9.5 contemplates early disclosure, evaluation, and possible mitigation of organizational conflicts by the Government.Q31: IDIQ Price Workbook The price/cost spreadsheet uses Government-populated hours for evaluation only. Will DFC publish the assumed hour distribution before proposal submission so offerors can validate their pricing approach against the same baseline?

A31: No other hour distributions will be published. Actual hours will be based on the requirements derived and awarded at the task order level.

Q32: C - Description/Specifications, 5. Task Ordering & Labor Hours, Page 17, Will DFC consider TO-level labor categories or rate adjustments if a TO requires specialized expertise not captured in the three IDIQ labor categories (Senior E&S Specialist, E&S Specialist, SME)?

A32: DFC intends to utilize one of the three labor categories in the solicitation in the award of task orders.

Q33: L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders, Notice of Industry Day, Page 57 Will Industry Day Q&A be posted to SAM.gov, and will DFC accept follow-up questions submitted in writing after the three-business-day post-Industry Day deadline?

A33: The Q&A will be posted. Industry is welcome to submit additional questions in writing, but it is not guaranteed that a response will be provided.

Q34: L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders, Notice of Industry Day, Page 57, Will DFC issue solicitation amendments based on Industry Day feedback, and if so, what is the expected timeline?

A34: See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q35: L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders, Contract Document, Page 58, For the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required under FAR 52.219-9, does DFC have specific socioeconomic goal expectations for this acquisition (e.g., SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB percentages)?

A35: A small business subcontracting plan is not required. FAR 52.219-9 has been removed.

Q36: Will DFC provide its branding/style guide and Section 508-compliant templates to the awardee, or is the Contractor expected to develop accessible deliverables from scratch?

A36: DFC will provide its applicable branding/style guidance to the awardee. However, DFC does not currently maintain Section 508-compliant Environmental & Social templates for these deliverables; therefore, offerors should assume the Contractor will be responsible for preparing accessible deliverables that comply with Section 508, likely using existing DFC templates and formats as reference materials that may require adaptation to become compliant.

The SOW requires that reports follow DFC branding and style guidance and be accessible (Section 508 compliant), and it also contemplates contractor support for development of guidance materials, templates, and SOPs. DFC has branding and style guides it will furnish.

Q37: C - Description/Specifications, Deliverables, Page 19, For Monthly Status Reports, will DFC provide a template, or is the format Contractor-defined?

A37: DFC may provide examples or reference formats after award, but the SOW does not prescribe a Government-furnished template for the Monthly Status Report. Accordingly, offerors should assume the format is Contractor-defined, subject to DFC review and any Task Order-specific instructions, and must meet the SOW’s requirements for timeliness, clarity, and accessibility.

Q38: Estimated Annual Volume of E&S deliverable reviews/Concurrent reviews: What is the estimated number of E&S deliverable reviews (disaggregated by single and concurrent reviews) anticipated per contract year under the base year and each option year? The SOW references an estimate of 1–30 reports. Can DFC provide a more specific anticipated range by type of document (e.g., ESIA, ESMP, LRPs, RPF, RAP, etc.) and by base year and option years? This will help ensure offerors appropriately estimate the number of personnel with the range of required specialized expertise to provide time-sensitive advisory services under each issued task order.

A38: DFC is not providing a more granular estimate of annual review volumes, concurrent review counts, or document-type breakouts by base year and option years beyond the estimates already reflected in the solicitation.

Task Order demand will vary based on DFC’s transaction pipeline, project-specific risk, and the timing and complexity of assignments; individual Task Orders will define the required scope, deliverables, estimated hours, schedule, and budget.

Offerors should therefore propose an approach that can support time-sensitive reviews across the range of E&S deliverables contemplated by the SOW, including screening memos, due diligence reviews, monitoring reports, specialist studies, corrective action materials, and related documentation such as ESIAs, ESMPs, RAPs, LRPs, stakeholder engagement materials, and other thematic or sector-specific documents, with qualified personnel and SMEs mobilized as needed under each Task Order.

Q39: Document Size & Complexity: Depending on type of document (e.g. ESIA, ESMP, RAPs, etc.), E&S deliverables can run hundreds of pages with numerous annexes, supplementary studies, and multi-volume submissions. Can DFC confirm the typical page range for submissions that would trigger additional time for review beyond the estimated hours listed on page 17 of the RFP?

A39: DFC is not establishing a fixed page-count threshold that automatically triggers additional review time beyond the estimated hours in the solicitation. As reflected in the SOW and ESPP, review effort is expected to vary by Task Order based on the scope, complexity, risk profile, and supporting documentation for the specific assignment, and each Task Order will define the required scope, deliverables, estimated hours, schedule, and budget.

Offerors should therefore assume that large or multi-volume submissions—such as ESIAs, ESMPs, RAPs, LRPs, CHAs, and related annexes or supplementary studies—may require additional level of effort where warranted, but DFC is not providing a standard page range for that determination under this solicitation.

Q40: Document Language: Will all E&S deliverables submitted for review be provided to the contractor in English, or does DFC anticipate submissions in other languages? If non-English documents are submitted, will DFC provide certified translations, or is the contractor expected to have multilingual review capabilities?

A40: DFC expects contractor deliverables under this contract to be submitted in English; however, source documents provided for review may at times include materials in other languages depending on the project location and assignment. Offerors should therefore demonstrate the ability to review and interpret project documentation from the range of countries where DFC is authorized to work and should be prepared to provide personnel with relevant local language capability when required by a Task Order.

DFC is not stating that it will provide certified translations for all non-English source materials. As reflected in the SOW, specific service requirements will be defined at the Task Order level, and other language skills may be preferred or required depending on the assignment. Offerors may use appropriate translation support tools and resources, including technology-enabled tools, as part of their internal approach; however, the contractor remains responsible for the accuracy and quality of its review and all required English-language deliverables.

Q41: Document Standards: Under what circumstances will the contractor be asked to assess E&S deliverables that follow other than the major performance standards (World Bank EHS, IFC Performance Standards, etc.) such as EBRD/EIB, Equator Principles, or AIIB standards?

A41: DFC’s baseline Applicable Standards for this contract are the DFC ESPP, IFC Performance Standards, World Bank EHS Guidelines, relevant World Bank sector-specific standards, host country law, applicable international legal obligations, ILO Fundamental Conventions, GIIP, and any requirements in the DFC finance agreement, as specified in the SOW.

However, under the ESPP, when DFC is co-financing a project with a multilateral development bank, DFC may apply the standards or policies of the respective MDB, in whole or in part (other than the IFC Performance Standards), to facilitate participation in the transaction, provided the common approach is materially consistent in content and outcomes with the ESPP and the Applicable Standards. This is the principal circumstance in which a contractor may be asked to assess documents prepared against other MDB frameworks.

Accordingly, offerors should not assume that EBRD, EIB, Equator Principles, AIIB, or similar frameworks will apply as stand-alone governing standards for all assignments. Rather, if a Task Order involves co-financing, parallel lender requirements, or project documentation already structured to another institution’s framework, DFC may ask the contractor to review those materials and assess their alignment, comparability, or material consistency with

DFC’s Applicable Standards and project-specific requirements. Specific standards and review expectations will be identified at the Task Order level.

Q42: Sector Distribution: What is the anticipated sector distribution of DFC supported projects requiring E&S review (e.g., energy, water/wastewater, mining, agribusiness, ICT, transportation - marine ports, airports, etc.)? This will help offerors ensure appropriate subject matter expertise coverage.

A42: DFC is not providing a projected sector-by-sector distribution of E&S review volume under this solicitation.

As reflected in the SOW, assignments will be driven by DFC’s transaction pipeline and may require support across multiple sectors and project stages, including screening, due diligence, monitoring, thematic reviews, and sector-specific analysis on a Task Order basis.

For proposal purposes, offerors should demonstrate the ability to support a broad range of sectors identified in the SOW, including oil and gas, mining/critical minerals, telecommunications/ICT, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, chemical manufacturing, and agriculture, and to mobilize additional subject matter expertise as needed.

DFC’s E&S framework also contemplates reviews for projects whose risk profile depends on sector, business activity, and country context, including areas such as extractive industries, agricultural commodities, and other infrastructure and industrial activities.

Accordingly, DFC encourages offerors to propose flexible staffing models with access to sector-specific SMEs rather than assuming a fixed annual sector mix. Specific sector expertise requirements, scope, deliverables, estimated hours, schedule, and budget will be identified at the Task Order level.

Q43: Standard Hierarchy: When a conflict exists between DFC's ESPP, the IFC Performance Standards, host country law, and sector-specific WBG EHS Guidelines, what is the order of precedence that the contractor should apply in its assessment?

A43: For DFC review purposes, contractors should evaluate projects for compliance with applicable host country law and with DFC’s Applicable Standards; where standards differ, contractors should identify the gap and assess the project against DFC’s Applicable Standards, while also identifying any additional legal obligations under host country law.

Q44: International Labor Organization Conventions: Will DFC provide guidance on which specific ILO Fundamental Conventions are most commonly applicable to the project portfolio, and fundamentally which DFC considers enforceable under its financial agreements, or is the successful offeror expected to independently identify relevant conventions on a project-by-project basis and compared to US ratified ILO conventions?

A44: The SOW identifies ILO Fundamental Conventions as part of the Applicable Standards and contemplates contractor support on a project-by-project basis. The ESPP further provides that, in addition to compliance with applicable law, DFC requires projects to meet its Applicable Standards, including labor rights, and that DFC incorporates project-specific environmental and social conditions into its finance agreements as appropriate.

Accordingly, DFC is not providing in this solicitation a fixed portfolio-wide list of ILO conventions that always apply, nor is the contractor’s analysis limited to U.S.-ratified ILO conventions. The successful offeror should identify relevant labor standards on a project-by-project basis, consistent with the ESPP, applicable IFC Performance Standards, host country law, and any Task Order- or transaction-specific requirements.

Q45: Teaming/Joint Venture Eligibility: Please confirm that offerors may submit quotes as a prime contractor with IDIQ teaming partners/subcontractors and that DFC will evaluate the technical qualifications of the entire consortium.

A45: DFC will evaluate the technical qualifications of the entire consortium. However, more weight may be given to prime contractor qualifications. Please identify subcontractors and teaming partners. See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q46: Evaluation Criteria: There is a discrepancy between the technical evaluation criteria listed on pages 24 and 61 of the RFP. Specifically, the criteria on page 24 exclude the Task Scenario (included in the list on page 61) and include Past Performance (excluded on page 61). Please confirm the technical evaluation criteria for this procurement, including the scoring for the Task Scenario.

A46: See Solicitation Amendment 1. Criteria on page 24 has been removed.

Q47: Task Scenario: Please confirm that offerors may reference past project work product to substantiate their analytical approach within the memorandum, or whether the response must be based solely on the hypothetical scenario as described?

A47: Offerors may reference past project work.

Q48: Executive Order Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, And Performance In Federal Contracting: Section C, subsection 2, states that “Task Orders may be issued on a “Labor Hour and/or Firm Fixed Price (FFP) basis”.

Moreover, Section 52.216-1 Type of Contract (Apr 1984) of the solicitation states that the government contemplates award of an “Firm Fixed Price and/or T&M/ Labor Hour contract resulting from this solicitation.” Considering the Executive Order concerning federal contracting published on April 30, 2026, please confirm that the contract type for this award remains an IDIQ with both T&M/ Labor Hour and Fixed Price task orders basis?

A48: Contract type will be determined on a task order basis. Even for FFP task orders, it is expected that the labor rates will be the building block for the FFP.

Q49: IDIQ Ceiling: The solicitation does not include a ceiling value for the IDIQ. Could DFC kindly confirm whether there is a contract ceiling for this award?

A49: Please refer to FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations in the solicitation.

Q50: Labor Categories: Section C, subsection 5 presents three labor categories notes that the government may “require the addition of any new labor categories that are within the general scope, nature, and complexity of this contract.” Would DFC consider adding a Project Manager labor category to allow Offerors to engage the required point of contact and other personnel responsible for administering Task Orders (personnel contracting, financial oversight etc.).

A50: See A4.

Q51: Page Limit: The solicitation does not include an overall page limit for the proposals, nor page limits for any specific section – only a recommendation that the requested technical memorandum is recommended to be 5-8 pages. Could DFC clarify whether there are any page limits that govern submission of proposals?

A51: See A6.

Q52: Is there a page limit on the overall Technical Proposal, and if so, is this limit inclusive of the Task Scenario for Proposal Evaluation?

A52: See A6.

Q53: Is there a page limit for the Task Scenario for Proposal Evaluation?

A53: See A6.

Q54: Is there a page limit on an Appendixes to the Technical Proposal?

A54: See A6.

Q55: Is there a page limit for CVs?

A55: See A6.

Q56: IDIQ Manager: The solicitation does not require an IDIQ Manager, although it does specify Key Personnel requirements. Could DFC clarify whether an IDIQ Manager is required, and if so, whether this position is considered Key Personnel per Section H.4? If not, what are the key personnel positions for this contract?

A56: Section H.4. is specifically referencing contract management. This has been added to the evaluation factors.

See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q57: Should the technical proposal include past performance references?

Q57: Past Performance references are not required for the technical proposal.

Q58: Is there a limit on the number of past performance references that can be submitted?

A58: See A6.

Q59: Is there a particular format Offerors should utilize to submit Past Performance qualifications for consideration?

A59: Please refer to FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, F.

Q60: Should past performance be submitted as a separate section or integrated within the technical qualifications narrative?

A60: Past Performance should be submitted separately. However, note that experience is a subfactor under Technical.

Q61: Contract Deliverables: Does DFC anticipate issuing an initial task order to fund work associated with IDIQ-level deliverables and other similar requirements, such as the Quality Control Plan?

A61: An initial task order will not be issued for a Quality Control Plan or other deliverables.

Q62: Quality Control Plan: Is the Quality Control Plan a contract deliverable?

A62: Yes. While the Quality Control Plan is not separately listed in the SOW’s deliverables table, the SOW requires the contractor to develop and maintain an effective Quality Control program. Accordingly, DFC considers the Quality Control Plan a required contract deliverable/management requirement to be provided after award within 30 days. See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q63: Proposal Requirements: Pages 23-24 of the RFP list several proposal requirements. We have two clarification questions: The numbering of the proposal requirements jumps from 6 to 9. Please confirm that no proposal requirements were inadvertently omitted. Please clarify where in the proposal submission offerors should address the conflict of interest and bid validity requirements – should these requirements be addressed in the Contract Documents section of the proposal?

A63: This section has been removed. See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q64: Section K: Please confirm that offerors should complete and return Section K from the RFP in the Contract Documents portion of the response.

A64: Offerors shall follow the instructions in Section K. If the offeror’s SAM.gov registration includes the representations, then manual submittal of the representations are not required.

Q65: Cover/Title Page: Please confirm that offerors may include a cover page/title page to the technical proposal addressing the applicable requirements on pages 53 and 55 of the RFP.

A65: Although it may be included, it will count towards the page limit(s).

Q66: Table of Contents: Please confirm that offerors may include a table of contents in the technical proposal.

A66: Although it may be included, it will count towards the page limit(s).

Q67: Executive Summary: Will DFC permit offerors to include a brief executive summary at the start of the technical proposal to highlight critical methods, capabilities, and experience?

A67: Although it may be included, it will count towards the page limit(s).

Q68: Industry Day: Will DFC please distribute the presentation materials shown at the industry day as an attachment to an amended RFP document?

A68: The industry day slides have been posted to SAM.gov.

Q69: Contract Documents: May offerors provide all of the required Contract Documents (page 58, Section D of the RFP) in a consolidated PDF file?

A69: The required documents may be provided in a consolidated PDF file.

Q70: Small Business Subcontracting Outline: Page 58 of the RFP refers to a small business subcontracting outline “provided by DFC”. Would DFC please provide this outline?

A70: See A5.

Q71: IDIQ Price Workbook: The summary tab in the IDIQ Price Workbook includes a column entitled “With Fees”, which appears to apply a 3% fee on the total costs pulled through from the Base Year, Option Year 1, etc. detailed tabs. Would DFC please clarify this column and the 3% fee rate? Please also confirm that offerors should include reasonable profit in their fully-loaded labor rates.

A71: See A3. Offerors should include reasonable profit in their fully-loaded labor rates.

Q75: IDIQ Price Workbook/Contract Award Date: The Base Year tab in the IDIQ Price Workbook references a contract award date of June 1, 2026. Considering that proposals are not due until May 21, would DFC please clarify the anticipated contract award date?

A75: The award date will be adjusted based on proposal evaluation timelines.

Q76: Extension: The pre-solicitation posted to the System for Award Management on February 20, 2026 stated the government intended to issue a draft Statement of Work prior to release of the solicitation. However, the RFP was released without such step being taken with a short 4-week response timeline. In the interest of allowing time for DFC to respond to substantive clarification questions (including technical proposal instructions and evaluation criteria) and ensuring many firms can bid, would DFC consider extending the deadline into June?

A76: See A13.

Q77: Insurance Requirements: Does DFC require a minimum level of Professional Liability / Errors & Omissions insurance coverage to implement this contract? If so, what is that minimum level of coverage?

A77: Professional Liability/Errors & Omissions insurance coverage is not required to be awarded the contract.

However, the contractor is responsibility for maintaining satisfactory performance levels.

Q78: Section D.11 permits offerors to submit their own subcontracting plan in lieu of DFC's outline if it meets all small business subcontracting plan requirements. Can DFC please share this outline?

A78: See A5.

Q79: FAR 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting) is checked on page 6 of the RFQ, but the solicitation is Unrestricted per SF 1449 – would DFC confirm this clause is inapplicable and therefore uncheck this requirement?

A79: This has been removed. See Solicitation Amendment 1.

Q80: Can you please confirm how many candidate profiles should be submitted for each of the three roles? Is there a minimum or maximum?

A80: There is no minimum or maximum limit for the candidate profiles for the three roles.

Q81: Can you please confirm that the same individual can be proposed for more than one role (e.g., Senior E&S Specialist and Subject Matter Expert)?

A81: The solicitation does not expressly prohibit proposing the same individual for more than one role. However, any such individual must meet the qualification requirements for each applicable labor category, and the offeror must demonstrate that its staffing approach is realistic and sufficient to meet the solicitation and applicable Task Order requirements.

Because each Task Order will define the specific service requirements, DFC may accept a proposal in which one individual is identified for more than one role, but offerors should not assume that one individual will always be sufficient where the scope, timing, or complexity of the work requires separate resources.

Q82: Can you please confirm that the primary point of contact (POC) for DFC communications must be one of the three named roles (Senior E&S Specialist, E&S Specialist, or SME), or may a separate individual serve as POC?

A82: A separate individual may service as a point of contact or key personnel as described in H.4.

Q83: On page 23 of the RFQ, Proposal Requirements #3, can you please confirm how "core team" defined for purposes of this solicitation?

A83: See A63.

Q84: Can DFC please consider adding an E&S Analyst labor category (requiring up to 2 years of experience)? The current structure starts at the E&S Specialist level (5 years); junior staff working under Specialist supervision could deliver routine task-order activities at competitive rate

A84: Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with the solicitation as issued. The solicitation currently identifies the applicable labor categories and qualification requirements for this requirement, including an Environmental and Social Specialist category requiring 5+ years’ experience.

At this time, DFC is not revising the solicitation to add an E&S Analyst or other junior labor category. As stated in the SOW, the Government may require the addition of new labor categories during contract performance, within scope, through a bilateral modification.

Accordingly, offerors should prepare proposals and pricing using the labor categories provided in the solicitation. To the extent an offeror uses junior personnel as part of its internal staffing approach, that remains the contractor’s responsibility under its own management and quality control structure; however, proposed and billed labor categories must align with the solicitation as issued.

Q85: Can DFC also please consider tiering the SME labor category into Levels 1, 2, and 3 (e.g., L1: 5–8 years, L2:

8–12 years, L3: 12+ years)? The current single SME tier (12+ years) leaves a 7-year gap above the E&S Specialist;

tiering would let DFC match SME seniority and cost to task-order complexity.

A85: See A84.

Q86: The SME expertise areas in Section G (Technical evaluation factors), PWS Section 3 (Scope of Work), and PWS Section 6 (Contractor experience & qualifications) are described at differing levels of granularity. We have consolidated them into ten thematic categories and nine sectors (below). Would DFC confirm these capture the expertise it is seeking, and raise any gaps?

A86: The SOW contemplates that the Contractor will have access to a range of subject matter experts able to support thematic environmental and social issues across different sectors on a project-by-project basis. The SOW provides illustrative examples of both thematic expertise and sector expertise, including but not limited to biodiversity, resettlement, Indigenous Peoples, labor, stakeholder engagement, GBVH, air, water, contamination, process safety/risk-type studies, mining/critical minerals, oil and gas, telecommunications, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, chemical manufacturing, and agriculture.

DFC considers the proposed thematic and sector groupings to be a reasonable way for an offeror to organize and present its capabilities. However, DFC is not adopting those groupings as the exclusive or controlling framework for this solicitation. Offerors should ensure their proposals clearly address the specific expertise contemplated by the solicitation and SOW, including more granular capabilities identified in the SOW, and demonstrate the capacity to provide qualified experts as required by individual Task Orders.

Q87: Proposed thematic categories: (1) Biodiversity and Critical Habitat (2) Resettlement and Livelihoods (3) Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Heritage (4) Labor and Working Conditions (5) Air Quality and Noise (6) Water Resources and Quality (7) Soil, Site Contamination and Chemical (8) Process Safety and Risk (9) Climate Resilience and Cumulative Impacts (10) Stakeholder Engagement and GBVH

A87: See A86.

Q88: Proposed sectors: (1) Energy (2) Mining and Critical Minerals (3) Infrastructure (4) Agriculture and Agribusiness (5) Telecommunications (6) Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare (7) Chemical Manufacturing (8) Financial Intermediaries (9) Maritime

A88: See A86.

Q89: Can you please confirm that a single SME can cover multiple thematic categories and sectors, or is one SME required per category and sector?

A89: The solicitation does not require one SME per thematic category or per sector. The SOW provides that the Contractor must have access to qualified subject matter experts on an as-needed basis, and that each Task Order will define the specific service requirements and personnel qualifications required for the assignment.

Accordingly, a single SME may cover multiple thematic areas and/or sectors where the offeror demonstrates that the individual has the relevant qualifications and experience. However, offerors should also demonstrate the capacity to mobilize additional experts where required by the scope or complexity of a particular Task Order.

Q90: For the Past Performance evaluation factor, will DFC consider past performance of proposed subcontractors and key personnel alongside the prime offeror's corporate past performance?

A90: See Solicitation Amendment 1 for subcontractor past performance requirements.

Q91: Screening Objectives and Required Content, Question: Page 15, Section C, Item 3, Task 1, For task orders for Task 1, Environmental and Social Screening, does DFC expect screening memoranda to explicitly address all four ESPP screening objectives: area of Influence definition; identification of adverse risks and impacts (including those that could preclude support); identification of issues for further review; and determination of documentation and consultation requirements—or may task orders tailor screening outputs based on transaction stage and risk profile?

A91: The SOW provides that Task 1 screening deliverables may take the form of red-flags reports and/or screening memoranda, depending on the assignment, and that Task Orders will specify scope and deliverables.

Accordingly, DFC expects screening outputs to be consistent with the ESPP’s screening-stage objectives, but the specific content and level of detail may be tailored at the Task Order level based on transaction stage, available information, and project risk profile. If a Task Order does not provide more specific tailoring, the screening deliverable should be sufficient to support DFC’s preliminary assessment of key risks, issues for further review, and any apparent documentation or consultation needs based on the information available.

Q92: Area of Influence and Cumulative Impact Treatment, Question: Page 15, Section C, Item 3, Task 1 and Task 2, What level of analysis does DFC expect during screening with respect to indirect, induced, supply-chain, regional, trans-boundary, and cumulative impacts within a project’s Area of Influence, versus deferring detailed evaluation of these pathways to the Task 2 Due Diligence Assessment?

A92: DFC expects Task 1 screening to include a preliminary, risk-based identification of potentially material indirect, induced, supply-chain-related, regional, trans-boundary, and cumulative impacts within the project’s Area of Influence sufficient to support screening-stage eligibility, categorization, and identification of issues requiring further review. The ESPP expressly provides that these impact pathways are considered during screening.

DFC generally expects Task 2 due diligence to carry forward and evaluate those pathways in greater detail to the extent material to the project, including through review of available E&S documentation and any additional analysis required for alignment with the Applicable Standards. This is consistent with the SOW distinction between preliminary screening and more comprehensive due diligence and with the ESPP’s risk-based approach to environmental and social review.

Task Orders may tailor the expected level of screening analysis based on transaction stage, available information, and project risk profile.

Q93: Boundary Between Screening (Task 1) and Due Diligence Assessment (Task 2), Question: Page 15, Section C, Item 3, Task 1, and Task 2, How does DFC distinguish expectations for screening-stage analysis in Task 1, versus environmental and social review activities of Task 2, Due Diligence Assessment, particularly with respect to performance standard compliance assessment, and identification of mitigation measures?

A93: DFC distinguishes Task 1 screening from Task 2 due diligence by treating Task 1 as a preliminary, screening-stage review focused on identifying E&S red flags and preliminarily identifying the potentially applicable IFC Performance Standards, ESPP requirements, and other relevant standards, typically documented through red-flag reports or screening memos. Task 2 is a more detailed review that assesses compliance with the Applicable Standards based on underlying project documentation, identifies gaps, recommends actions and mitigation measures needed for alignment, and may include site visits where required.

Q94: Client Support Scope and Responsiveness, Question: Pages 15-16, Section C, Item 3, Task 4, For task orders associated with Task,4 Client Support task orders, how does DFC typically define expected response times, level of technical depth, and documentation formats, and should contractors assume ad-hoc advisory support may be required concurrently with screening or due-diligence tasks?

A94: DFC anticipates that Task 4 Client Support requirements will be defined in the individual Task…