72049223R00011- PIFCA Amendment 1.pdf

(x)

72049223R00011 x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

x

720492

00000 USAID/Philippines

12/27/2023

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

See Block 16C

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

Pacific Islands Climate Finance

The purposes of this amendment are to:

1.Respond to the questions received on January 24, 2024;

2.Revise the RFP to reflect the changes made in response to the questions. Questions and answers are attached to this amendment.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Stephane C. Bright

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Stephane YM Carrenard Bright (affiliate)

Digitally signed by Stephane YM Carrenard Bright (affiliate) Date: 2024.02.02 16:06:21 +08'00'

RFP No. 72049223R00011, Amendment 1 “Pacific Islands Climate Finance” Activity (PICFA)

USAID Responses to Questions

GENERAL Questions

1. Section L.5 (page 134, first paragraph) states, “Please note that the Government's feedback will only be a recommendation. Offeror may elect to submit a full technical and cost proposal for Phase-Two.” However, the paragraph before, on the bottom of page 133 states, “Offerors with the Concept Note Proposal deemed high confidence will be invited to proceed to Phase-Two, submission of a Full Technical and Cost Proposal” and Section M.3.1 on page 161 below the table states, "Offerors whose Concept Note Proposal during Phase-One are rated ‘High Confidence’ will be invited to participate in Phase-Two of the evaluation process and will be requested to submit a Full Technical and Cost Proposal.” Would USAID please confirm that only offerors invited to submit Phase Two proposals will be considered for award?

USAID RESPONSE: All offerors are eligible to submit proposals at Phase-Two. Please refer to RFP section L.5 Voluntary Down-Select Process.

2. Section L.6 (pages 135-136) requires about 250 characters be included in the email subject line, but many email providers and software limit the subject line to 70 characters (and some 55 characters). Could USAID please confirm that Offerors may include the first three lines—Attention: Stéphane C. Bright, Contracting Officer, Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance (ROAA)—in the body of the email rather than the subject line?

USAID RESPONSE: The example email subject line is revised as follows. Please refer to the RFP amendment for the change(s).

Phase-One Subject Line: “Phase-One, Concept Note, RFP No. 72049223R00011, Pacific Islands Climate Finance Activity, Email 1 of XX”

Phase-Two Subject Line: “Phase-Two, Full Technical Proposal, RFP No. 72049223R00011, Pacific Islands Climate Finance Activity, Email 1 of XX”

Phase-Two Subject Line: “Phase-Two, Full Cost Proposal, RFP No. 72049223R00011, Pacific Islands Climate Finance Activity, Email 1 of XX”

3. L.6. Can USAID please confirm that the correct file size limitation for proposal submission is

25MB?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes. The total size for each electronic submission should not exceed 25MB.

Please refer to the RFP amendment.

4. The first paragraph of Section L.6 specifies proposals must be MS Office 2010 compatible. The second paragraph states that offerors can also submit PDF format proposals. Can USAID clarify whether submissions only in PDF form are acceptable?

USAID RESPONSE: Proposals should be submitted in both Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat portable document formats for the electronic submission.

5. L.6. May offerors include an acronym list in both the Phase One and Phase Two technical submissions that does not count toward the page limit?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: Offerors may submit a one (1) page Acronym List after the “Table of Contents” for Phase-One submission. Phase-Two submission already includes the Acronym List as an Annex on p. 141. The one page acronym list does not count toward the page limit.

6. Would USAID please consider adding an “Acronym List” to the Phase-One concept note guidance that begins on page 137?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 5 and refer to the RFP amendment.

7. RFP Reference: L.8; Page Number: 141; Relevant RFP Language: “Annexes... List of acronyms and/or abbreviations (optional)”

For ease of reading, may offerors include the List of Acronyms and/or Abbreviations in the Phase-Two Technical Proposal directly after the Table of Contents on pages not counted against the page limit (instead of in an annex at the end of the proposal)?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to questions 5 and 6.

8. RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 137; Relevant RFP Language: “Phase-One, Concept Note Proposal...

● Cover page (1 page, not counted against the page limit)

● Table of contents (1 page, not counted against the page limit)”

To enhance readability of the Concept Note, may offerors include a List of Acronyms and/or Abbreviations directly after the Table of Contents, on pages that are not counted against the page limit?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 5 and 6.

9. Can USAID confirm offerors may submit a List of Acronyms and/or Abbreviations in their Phase 1 concept note submission as an uncounted page?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 5 and 6.

10. L.6. Can USAID please confirm that a PDF submission is sufficient?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 4.

11. L.6. Can USAID please clarify whether the “Cover letter” referenced on page 138 is a separate requirement from the “Cover page” referenced on page 137? If separate, can USAID please confirm whether the cover letter should be submitted as a separate PDF as described on page 136?

USAID RESPONSE: The “cover letter” and “cover page” referenced in L.7 are two separate requirements.The requirement for the cover letter in L.6 should be submitted in both MS Word and Adobe PDF formats. The “cover letter” stated in L.7 is now changed to “cover page.” Please refer to the RFP amendment.

12. L.6. Would USAID kindly confirm that Factor Two is to be addressed entirely in annexes two and three for Phase One?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: Factor 2 must be addressed as part of the concept note (within the 10-page limit). Offerors must provide adequate information in responding to Factor 2 to demonstrate the Relevant Experience as it relates to climate finance. The purpose of the annexes (2-page limit) under Factor 2 is to support the statement provided in the Offeror’s concept note for Factor 2, Relevant Experience.

13. To fully respond to the RFP requirements for Section L.7 Factor 2: Relevant Experience and Past Performance, Past Performance (on page 139), would USAID please consider removing the one-page limit (L.7, Phase-One Concept Note Proposal, Annexes on page 138) or increasing the number of allowed pages to the PPIs presented in Attachment J.2?

USAID RESPONSE:The RFP is amended to now reflect submission of attachment J.2 + one additional page, if necessary, for a potential maximum of two pages for the prime. Offeror should submit attachment J.2 for each major subcontractor(s), for a total of one page per major subcontractor(s). Please refer to the RFP amendment.

14. Section M.3.1, Factor 2 (page 162): Could USAID please confirm that evaluation of Factor 2:

Relevant Experience and Past Performance is inclusive of information presented in the 10-page Concept Note as well as Annexes B (Narrative describing Relevant Experience implementing Climate Finance or similar activity) and C (Past Performance Information)?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID will evaluate the Offeror’s response to:

● Factor 2: Relevant Experience and Past Performance (which is counted against the 10-page limit)

● Narrative describing Relevant Experience implementing Climate Finance or similar activity (Annex; 2 pages)

● Past Performance Information

15. This solicitation provides two definitions of “major subcontractors:”

1. Section L.7 of the RFP (page 139) instructs Offerors to provide past performance information for itself, contractor teaming arrangements, and any major subs. Here, “major subs” are defined as those whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost.

2. However, Section L.9 (page 145) has a broader definition of “major subcontractor”, including those with more than 20% of the proposed cost OR those who are determined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation.

Please clarify which definition of major subcontractors is correct.

USAID RESPONSE: Major subcontractors are defined as those subcontractors whose proposed cost are at or above 20 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost. Please refer to the RFP amendment.

16. On Page 138, would USAID please increase the page limit allowance for the logical framework to five pages?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: USAID increased the page limit allowance for the logical framework to 5 pages. Please refer to the RFP amendment.

17. Section L.9.B, Part 2, paragraph 2 (page 145) requires Offerors to provide a completed Section B.

Section B.3.1 is one of the few RFP sections to mention CLINs. Could USAID please confirm that Offerors need to provide only a summary allocation of costs between the two CLINs for Section B.3.1?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, for purposes of the budget in Section B.3.1, Offerors must provide a summary of costs for each CLIN, Indirect Cost, and Fixed Fee. However, Offerors must also submit a detailed budget in excel spreadsheet along with its summary budget as shown in Attachment J.3 Budget Template. Please refer to the attachment in the RFP amendment.

18. RFP Reference: F.6.7; Page Number: 28-29; Relevant RFP Language: “Quarterly Performance Reports...Due Dates: Within 30 days following the end of each USG fiscal year quarter (October 30, January 30, April 30, July 30)”

RFP Reference: F.6.8; Page Number: 29-30; Relevant RFP Language: “Annual Performance Report...Due Date: Within 30 days after the end of each USG fiscal year, ending September 30, inclusive of the 4th quarter report for that year”

Since the annual report is inclusive of the 4th quarter report for that year, could USAID confirm that the contractor is not required to submit a separate Quarterly Performance Report on October 30 each year? Accordingly, could USAID kindly delete “October 30” from the list of due dates for the Quarterly Performance Reports in Section F.6.7?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, as referenced in the RFP on page 30, the Annual Performance Report is inclusive of the 4th Quarter Report. Therefore, the October 30/4th Quarterly Performance Report requirement is deleted in F.6.7 Quarterly Performance Report due dates.

19. RFP Reference: L.6; Page Number: 136; Relevant RFP Language: “The proposal must be accompanied by a cover letter typed on official organizational letterhead and signed by a person who has signatory authority for the organization. The cover letter shall be in Adobe PDF format.”

RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 137; Relevant RFP Language: “Cover page (1 page, not counted against the page limit)”

RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 138; Relevant RFP Language: “Phase-One Cover letter must include the following information...”

a. Could USAID confirm that the list of requirements a through h on page 138 are the requirements for the cover page, not the cover letter?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, the list of requirements a through h on page 138 are the requirements for the cover page. Please see response to question 11 and refer to the RFP amendment.

b. Could USAID confirm that offerors should submit a cover letter in Adobe PDF format separate from the cover page that is included in the Concept Note file?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 11.

20. RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 137-138; Relevant RFP Language: “The Phase-One Concept Note Proposal must not exceed 10 pages (excluding annexes) and must follow the specific guidelines as set forth below.”

To enhance readability of the Concept Note, may offerors include a 1-page executive summary that does not count against the 10-page limit?

USAID RESPONSE: An executive summary is not required.

21. In L.8 on page 141, would USAID please consider allowing an executive summary prior to the technical proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: We are assuming that this question pertains to Phase-One Concept Note.

Please see response to question 20.

22. RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 138; Relevant RFP Language: “Past Performance Information (PPIs) (see Attachment J.2) (1 page for each PPI (max of 5 for the prime; max of 2 for the proposed subcontractor).”

RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 139; Relevant RFP Language: “Offeror may list...up to two (2) for each of the major subcontractors (if any)”

a. Page 138 says offerors should submit a max of 2 PPIs for all subcontractors, whereas page 139 instructs offerors to submit PPIs for major subcontractors. Could USAID confirm that offerors may submit PPIs for all subcontractors (not just major subcontractors)?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 13.

b. Could USAID confirm that offerors may submit up to 2 PPIs for each subcontractor?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 13.

23. Can USAID please confirm that the Section L.7 PPI requirement allows for submission of five PPIs the prime, plus a max of two per major subcontract? For example, if a consortium has one major subcontractor, they could provide up to seven PPIs (five for the prime, two for the major subcontractor).

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 13.

24. Can USAID clarify that “Major Subcontractor(s)” are those subcontractors whose costs exceed 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation? We note that differing definitions of “Major Subcontractors” are provided in Sections L.7 and L.9.

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 15.

25. On Page 139 under Factor 2: Relevant Experience and Past Performance, Relevant Experience the RFP states that “Offerors must describe its relevant experience in implementing activity(ies) with similar scope and scale to the Pacific Islands Climate Finance Activity....” In addition, on page 138, the RFP requires an annex that features a “Narrative describing Relevant Experience implementing Climate Finance or similar activity (2 pages)”. Would USAID please clarify how the “Relevant Experience” featured within the 10-page limit of the Concept Note Proposal narrative differs from that requested in the 2-page Annex?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 12.

26. The current Past Performance guidance under section L.7 specifies that offerors may use projects from the last five years to demonstrate relevant past performance. Given the rapid developments in the South Pacific region and Climate Finance sector over the last five years, we propose USAID reduce project validity to those whose period of performance includes only the last three years.

USAID RESPONSE: RFP page 139 states “Recent past performance is defined as within the past five (5) years.” Offerors with less than five years of past performance experience will not be penalized.

27. RFP Reference: L.8; Page Number: 141; Relevant RFP Language: “Phase-Two Technical Proposal Offeror must submit the following:”

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

USAID RESPONSE: A 2-page executive summary is not a requirement.

28. Should USAID anticipate extending the submission deadline upon receipt of questions, would USAID please inform offerors via an initial amendment that would enable offerors to adjust proposal calendars while USAID formulates responses to questions?

USAID RESPONSE:USAID will not extend the submission deadline for Phase-One concept note.

29. Would USAID please clarify the anticipated timeline for receiving feedback on Phase-One submissions as well as the anticipated length of time that Offerors will have to prepare Phase-Two submissions?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID anticipates providing feedback on Phase-one on or about March/April 2024. Offerors may be given three to four weeks to prepare Phase-Two submission.

30. RFP Reference: L.8, Factor 3; Page Number: 142; Relevant RFP Language: “The offeror should also provide a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The QASP should show how the offeror links back to the PWS actions in terms of what will be inspected to assure quality delivery, who from the proposed offeror team will be doing the inspection, and the timeline for that inspection protocol.”

USAID Responses to Questions

RFP Reference: Attachment J.6; Relevant RFP Language: “QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

PLAN MATRIX (TEMPLATE)”

In the QASP annex of the Phase-Two Technical Proposal, could USAID confirm that offerors are only required to submit the completed matrix in Attachment J.6 (i.e., non narrative text is required)?

USAID RESPONSE: No. Offerors are required to submit their narratives for the Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (QASP) and complete the template provided in Attachment J.6.

31. Section B.6 Cancellation Procedures states that the “cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is $0 and there is no requirement to include cancellation dates in the contract” (p. 10);

however, Section L.9.B. Part 2 (p. 145) states that Offerors “must also submit the proposed cancellation ceilings for each year per FAR 17.106-1.” Please confirm that Offerors should propose a cancellation ceiling of $0 for each cancellation date.

USAID RESPONSE: Section L.9.B. Part 2 (p. 145) which states that “The Offeror must also submit the proposed cancellation ceilings for each year per FAR 17.106-1 is deleted.” Please refer to the RFP amendment.

32. Section D.3 (p. 15) states that the final Branding and Marking Plan is due within 90 days after award. Both Section F.7.1 (page 30) and the table in Section F.8 (p. 34) state that the final Branding and Marking Plan is due within 30 days after award. May USAID confirm that the final Branding and Marking Plan is due within 90 days after award?

USAID RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Please refer to the RFP amendment.

33. In reference to Section F.2 (p. 18), to assist Offerors in proposal planning and cost estimation, may USAID provide an estimated start date for the PICFA program?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID is not able to provide the estimated award date at this time. Offeror should consider 5 years for the purpose of preparing their cost proposal.

34. Section L.6 of the RFP states “Offerors must comply with the following requirements: only Letter paper size (i.e., 8.5 by 11.0 inches or 215.9 by 279.4 mm); single spaced; 12-point font Calibri 12, and the layout must be readable; Offerors may use font size 10 for text in graphs, charts, maps tables, and text boxes, so long as the text is legible; margins one inch (2.5 cm) wide; with sequentially numbered pages” (p. 134). Please confirm that these requirements apply only to 1) the Technical Proposal and 2) the Budget Narrative sections of the Cost Proposal.

USAID RESPONSE: This requirement applies to the technical, budget narrative/cost proposal, and all annexes to this RFP.

35. Can USAID confirm whether Calibri font is required for text in graphs, charts, maps, tables, and text boxes?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, Calibri also applies to text in graphs, charts, maps, tables, and text boxes.

USAID Responses to Questions

36. In reference to Section L.6, p. 137, please confirm that Offerors may complete representations and certifications electronically via the System for Award Management in lieu of submitting Representations, Certifications and Other Statements as an Annex to the Cost Proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: No. For this RFP, Offerors are required to submit Representations, Certifications and Other Statements as an Annex to the Cost Proposal.

37. May USAID revise the final paragraph of Section L.6 (p. 137) to: “For Section K, Offerors shall either submit the Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors as an Annex to the Cost Proposal and comply with FAR provision 52.204-7, System for Award Management OR complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications and other Statements of Offerors website at via the System for Award Management, www.sam.gov”?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 36.

38. Page 152 Part 3 states “All subcontractors must be registered in sam.gov”. Can USAID please confirm that subcontractors must obtain a Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number through sam.gov, but that full entity registration in sam.gov is not required for subcontractors?

USAID RESPONSE: In order for the prime offeror to obtain USAID consent to subcontract, the subcontractor must be fully registered in SAM and have a Unique Entity Identification (UEI) for awards that exceed $25,000.

39. The Phase 1 technical volume’s definition of “major subcontractor” (Section L.7, page 139) is based on the budget ratio (20% of total proposed cost), while the Phase 2 cost volume’s definition (Section L.9.B, page 145) is “20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation.”

These differences in the definition of “major subcontractor” may result in subcontractors being designated as “major subcontractors” in the Phase 2 proposal, but not as “major subcontractors” in the Phase 1 proposal.

Additionally, Offerors are not to submit cost information as part of their Phase 1 proposals, making it impossible for USAID to verify whether the subcontractor’s budget exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed costs.

Further, estimates of proposed subcontractor costs relative to the Offeror’s total proposed costs are subject to revision between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposal.

Together, these issues represent significant limitations to using the ratio of subcontractor costs relative to the Offeror’s total proposed costs as the sole basis of “major subcontractor” determinations.

To address these issues, may USAID amend the definition of “major subcontractors” in Section L.7 and throughout the solicitation to “one whose costs exceed 20 percent of the Offeror’s total

USAID Responses to Questions proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 15.

40. The RFP contains two definitions for “major subcontractor:” one under section L.7, on page 139 ( one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total cost); and one under Section L.9, on page 145 (those subcontractors whose costs exceed 20 percent of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or who are otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful project implementation). With the RFP’s strong emphasis on local partners – particularly important in the Pacific Island region – the 20% threshold may not be indicative of the importance of a particular subcontractor’s role on the project. We request that USAID clarify the definition of major subcontractors in favor section L.9.

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 15.

41. Since Offerors will submit proposals electronically via email, please confirm that USAID shall accept signatures applied electronically – including in cases where an “original” signature is referred to in the RFP.

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, electronic signatures are acceptable. The word “original” in this statement is deleted. Please refer to the RFP amendment.

42. The RFP states, “The period of performance for this contract is five (5) years from [TBD] to [TBD].” Can USAID please provide the estimated award date for purposes of preparing the cost proposal.

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 33.

43. To assist offerors in their planning and their preparation of compliant high-quality proposals, can USAID kindly provide an anticipated (non-binding) evaluation timeline for Phase-one decision-making and issuance of Advisory notification to proceed with submission of Phase Two proposals?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 29.

44. Should USAID anticipate extending the submission deadline upon receipt of questions, would USAID please inform offerors via an initial amendment that would enable offerors to adjust proposal calendars while USAID formulates responses to questions?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 28.

45. Noting there is conflicting guidance across section L (pg. 134 limits file size to 5MB and page 137 limits file size to 25MB) Can USAID please clarify the individual file size limitation requirements?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 3.

USAID Responses to Questions

46. Can USAID please clarify if offerors are required to address Factors 1 and 2 within the 10-page limit for the Phase-One Concept Note Proposal? Or should offerors use the 10 pages to address Factor 1 and use the prescribed annexes to address Factor 2?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 12.

47. While USAID specifies a page length for the Phase 2 Technical Approach, it does not specify page length for the Annexes to accompany the Phase 2 proposal. In the absence of a page limit, offerors could, conceivably, submit as many as a hundred pages of Annexes, not in keeping with the page limits otherwise put forward in section L. We would like to request that USAID indicate page limits for each of the nine Annexes that are referenced in section L.8. For example, we suggest 5 pages for the Illustrative First Year Implementation Plan (including rapid mobilization plan), and similar limits for the QASP and Table of Key Personnel Position Descriptions. Placing page limits on each Annex should ensure that USAID can easily compare technical proposals, as well.

USAID RESPONSE:

● Annexes (not counted against page limit) - Each Annex has an individual page limit as noted below:

● Illustrative first year implementation plan (including rapid mobilization plan) (7pages)

● Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (QASP) (7 pages)

● Targets and Indicators Matrix (7 pages)

● Gantt Chart outlining implementation timelines over the life of the project (1page)

● Profiles and description of roles of consortium partners (if any) (7pages)

● Organizational Chart (1 page)

● Table of Management Positions (7pages)

● Key Personnel position description, experience requirements, qualification requirements

(7pages)

● List of acronyms and/or abbreviations (optional) (1page)

48. Can USAID confirm whether there will be a separate opportunity to submit questions for Phase Two?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID may consider an additional Q&A period during Phase-Two of the proposal. This will be determined at Phase-Two.

49. Can USAID confirm whether there will be an additional Q&A period during Phase 2 of the proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 48.

50. As Offerors may require clarification on some aspects of the Phase 2 requirements based on responses received in Phase 1 or when preparing the items required in Phase 2, will USAID kindly consider allowing a Phase 2 Q&A period?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 48.

51. Would USAID please consider allowing Offerors to ask additional questions during Phase-Two?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 48.

52. Can USAID please provide an estimated timeframe for the Phase Two proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: Please refer to response to question 29.

53. Would USAID please consider adding information about the confidence rating for Factors 1 and 2 to the advisory notification following Phase-One?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID retains the instruction provided in L.5 on Additional Information for Phase-One.

54. Will Grants Under Contract be authorized under this contract?

USAID RESPONSE: No.

55. Does USAID intend to have Grants Under Contract (GUCs) under this solicitation?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 54.

56. Can USAID please clarify if the “extraordinary problems,” “quality of awards and certifications,” and the “performance in small business concerns” in Factor 2 should be included in Annex C or if they should be presented in a separate annex?

USAID RESPONSE: There is no Annex C in the RFP. In Attachment J.2, Offerors can provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken for extraordinary problems as noted in the RFP (p.

140).

57. RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 138; Relevant RFP Language: “Annexes...Narrative describing Relevant Experience implementing Climate Finance or similar activity (2 pages)”

RFP Reference: L.7; Page Number: 139; Relevant RFP Language: “Factor 2: Relevant Experience and Past Performance Relevant Experience

● The Offeror must describe its relevant experience in implementing activity(ies) with similar scope and scale to the Pacific Islands Climate Finance Activity. The Offeror must demonstrate its partnering ability to meet or exceed the requirement outlined in the statement of objectives. The Offeror’s description of its relevant experience and approach to partnering must take into consideration the issues and challenges presented by the Offeror in its proposal.”

USAID Responses to Questions

The Concept Note outline on page 138 includes both “Factor 2: Relevant Experience and Past Performance” and an annex for “Narrative describing Relevant Experience implementing Climate Finance”. The detailed instructions for Factor 2 on page 139 require offerors to present experience implementing activities with similar scope to PICFA in the main body of the Concept Note, and the PICFA scope includes “Objective 1: Mobilize Climate Finance”. Page 139 does not provide any details on what information should be included in the second annex. Could USAID kindly provide additional guidance on what experience should be presented in the main body of the Concept Note and what information should be included in the second annex experience implementing climate finance?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 12.

TECHNICAL Questions

58. Attachment J.1, Objective 2 (page 6) notes the following results: “85 entities within the PICs with improved capacity and accreditation.” Given the considerable time and resources required to achieve accreditation as well as the ability to access other public and private funds without needing accreditation, would USAID please adjust this result to “85 entities within the PICs with improved capacity or accreditation?”

USAID RESPONSE: USAID has reviewed the text and will make the following change: “85 entities within the PICs with improved capacity and/or accreditation.” Please refer to the RFP amendment.

59. Attachment J.1, Cross-Cutting Objective: Effective and Streamlined Coordination of Climate Finance Through Various Partners and Access Modalities (page 8), USAID identifies the following result: “At least 12 coordination councils in the region, or a minimum of 1 per country where USAID works.” Could USAID please clarify if 1 per country is a required target, and if yes remove the word "or"?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID will keep the text as written in the RFP.

60. Under Objective 2 of the SOO, USAID gives the following minimum result: “At least 85 entities within the PICs with improved capacity and accreditation to access climate finance.” Can USAID clarify whether this target means some mix of entities receive accreditation while others receive only capacity strengthening, or is the target for 85 new entities to be accredited to access climate finance?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 58.

61. On Page 37, USAID mentions “At least 12 coordination councils in the region, or a minimum if 1 per country where USAID works.” Would USAID please confirm that this includes existing councils?

USAID RESPONSE: If climate finance coordination councils already exist for that express purpose then those would be included.

USAID Responses to Questions

62. J.1. For the results under Objective 1 (p.5), can USAID please confirm that “USD 1.05 billion in climate finance (public, private, and/or concessionary) mobilized” is inclusive of the “USD 350 million of assets built/rehabilitated”?

USAID RESPONSE: The “USD 1.05 billion in climate finance (public, private, and/or concessionary) mobilized” is not inclusive of the “USD 350 million of assets built/rehabilitated”.

63. J.1. For the results under Objective 2, can USAID please clarify the definitions of and distinctions between “entity” as in “at least 85 entities within the PICs...” and “institution” as in “80 institutions within the PICs...” (p. 6)?

USAID RESPONSE: For the results under Objective 2, entities are defined to include all public and private organizations able to access climate finance and/or receive accreditation. Institution is defined as all public and private organizations that work to address impacts of climate change.

64. J.1. For the result of “at least 85 entities within the PICs with improved capacity and accreditation to access climate finance” (p.6), can USAID please confirm whether entities have to achieve both improved capacity and accreditation (as currently worded) in order to be counted towards this target? Or will improving capacity to access climate finance for already accredited entities contribute to this result?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 58.

65. J.1. For the results under Objective 2 (p. 6), can USAID please confirm whether the “85 entities within the PICs with improved capacity and accreditation to access climate finance” and the “80 institutions within the PICs with improved capacity to address climate change” can include overlapping organizations?

USAID RESPONSE: Where appropriate there may be instances of overlapping organizations that meet both definitions.

66. J.1. Can USAID please identify the expected results of the “at least 12 coordination councils in the region, or a minimum of 1 per country where USAID works”? Should these be created and/or strengthened?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 58.

67. The most recent report for the USAID Climate Ready project available on the DEC is “USAID Climate Ready Quarterly Progress Report FY23 Q2 January to March 2023.” To ensure a level playing field for all offerors, could USAID provide the most recent Climate Ready reports (e.g., USAID Climate Ready Quarterly Progress Report FY23 Q3 April to June 2023, USAID Climate Ready Annual Report FY23, USAID Climate Ready Final Report)?

USAID RESPONSE: The Final report for the Climate Ready activity is inclusive of the results that would have been included in the Q3 report and the final report has been uploaded to the DEC.

68. Can USAID please provide the final report from the Climate Ready program?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: Please refer to question 67.

69. L.7. For Factor 2, USAID states that “the Offeror must demonstrate its partnering ability to meet or exceed the requirement outlined in the statement of objectives. The Offeror’s description of its relevant experience and approach to partnering must take into consideration the issues and challenges presented by the Offeror in its proposal” (p.139). Can USAID please confirm that this is referring to the Cross-Cutting Objective: Effective and Streamlined Coordination of Climate Finance Through Various Partners and Access Modalities and specifically referencing that “this activity seeks to coordinate various partners and mechanism involved in climate finance at the various levels in the Pacific Islands region and of various funding types” (J.1. p. 7)?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror’s ability to demonstrate its partnering ability applies to the entire suite of activities as outlined in the Statement of Objectives. The Offeror must determine how it will approach and develop its proposal to address partnership.

70. Under the first Cross-Cutting Objective (Effective and Streamlined Coordination of Climate Finance Through Various Partners and Access Modalities) of the SOO, the following intended result is given: “At least 12 coordination councils in the region, or a minimum of 1 per country where USAID works.” Can USAID please confirm that either strengthening of existing coordination bodies or establishment of new coordination councils would achieve this result?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 59.

71. RFP Reference: L.7, Factor 1; Page Number: 138-139; Relevant RFP Language: “This discussion should demonstrate how the offeror’s proposed approach aligns with the theory of change and Results Framework provided in the SOO.”

RFP Reference: M.3.1, Factor 1; Page Number: 162; Relevant RFP Language: “The extent to which the Offeror proposes an overall strategy and theory of change”

RFP Reference: J.1.V; Page Number: 3 of 12 (Attachment J.1); Relevant RFP Language: “Theory of Change”

Page 139 instructs offerors to align proposed approaches with the theory of change included on page 3 of the Statement of Objectives. However, the evaluation criteria on page 162 states that offerors are required to propose a new theory of change in the Concept Note.

Could USAID confirm that offerors should align with the theory of change provided by USAID (and not propose a new theory of change)? Could USAID kindly amend the evaluation criteria on page 162 accordingly?

USAID RESPONSE: The language has been changed to read “The extent to which the Offeror proposes an overall strategy that supports the RFP theory of change”

USAID Responses to Questions

72. In the Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria on Page 162, USAID states that Offerors should propose an overall strategy and Theory of Change. Would USAID please confirm that Offerors may revise the Theory of Change provided in the solicitation?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 71.

73. L.7 Requests past performance information be provided as an Annex to the Phase-One submission.

● Please confirm that in the Past Performance Information Annex offerors should provide a list of the most recent and relevant contracts for past performance references regardless of CPAR status and that the list should include contract name, contract number, contract ceiling, period of performance and a brief description of relevancy?

● Please confirm that the Attachment J.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) form provided should only be completed for contracts not in CPARS?

USAID RESPONSE: Please refer to the RFP as written and amended and utilize Attachment J.2 Past Performance Information (PPI).

74. RFP Reference: L.8, Factor 3; Page Number: 142; Relevant RFP Language: “The technical approach should identify and demonstrate structured thinking behind the proposed interventions, and tied to the proposed, coherent theory of change.”

RFP Reference: J.1.V; Page Number: 3 of 12 (Attachment J.1); Relevant RFP Language: “Theory of Change”

Page 142 states that offerors are required to propose a new theory of change in the Phase-Two Technical Proposal. In the Full Technical Proposal, could USAID confirm that offerors should align with the theory of change provided by USAID on page 3 of the Statement of Objectives (and not propose a new theory of change)? Could USAID kindly amend the instructions on page 142 accordingly?

USAID RESPONSE: The language in the RFP has now been changed to “The technical approach should identify and demonstrate structured thinking behind the proposed interventions, and tied to the theory of change in the SOO.”

75. In L.8 on page 141, would USAID please consider allowing a technical approach section prior to the PWS within full technical proposal to allow offerors to reiterate their approach. Page 142 lists the technical approach as part of the PWS, but the PWS format and style can make it difficult to describe approaches adequately.

USAID RESPONSE: USAID refers offerors to the text as written in the RFP.

76. RFP Reference: L.8, Factor 4; Page Number: 144; Relevant RFP Language: “NOTE about Key Personnel. After submission of the proposal and subject to USAID approval, the successful Contractor’s proposed qualifications for the selected Key Personnel positions will be inserted in

USAID Responses to Questions

Section F. Within 30 days after award, the contractor will propose qualified candidates for the key personnel positions, subject to the COR concurrence and CO approval.”

RFP Reference: L.9.B, Part 2.g; Page Number: 147; Relevant RFP Language: “Completed biographical data sheets: Form AID 1420-17 (forms may be obtained at:

http://www.usaid.gov/forms/), must be provided for all proposed Key Personnel.”

a. The text from page 143 cited above seems to imply that offerors should submit candidates that possess those expertise and skills as part of the Phase-Two Technical Proposal. However, the text cited from page 144 implies that offerors should not include the names or qualification of candidates as part of the proposal. Could USAID confirm that offerors are not allowed to include the names or qualifications of candidates in the Phase Two Technical Proposal?

b. Since candidates cannot be named, could USAID confirm that offerors are not required to submit biographical data sheets for key personnel as part of the full proposal in Phase Two?

USAID RESPONSE: Key personnel do not need to be named as part of the Phase 2 submission. Offerors are not required to submit biographical data sheets for Key personnel as part of the full proposal in Phase two. Offeror should outline key personnel roles, responsibilities and education requirements.

However, after award, the biographical data sheets are required for Key Personnel when requesting for USAID approval.

77. Section M.3.2 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 3 on Page 164 mentions that the SOO results are “illustrative.” Can USAID please clarify if the results are required or illustrative?

USAID RESPONSE: The results are required, and the RFP language has been updated. Please refer to the RFP Amendment.

78. RFP Reference: L.8, Factor 4; Page Number: 144; Relevant RFP Language: “An Organizational Chart displaying the activity’s anticipated staffing structure and office(s) with lines of authority and general descriptions of all home office and field employees.”

a. The instructions for the organizational chart include a requirement for general descriptions (i.e., narrative text about the responsibilities of each position). However, there is a separate annex for a Table of Management Positions that includes “the anticipated roles/responsibilities” for the core management positions and other strategic and technical positions. In addition, the graphical nature of an organizational chart does not lend itself to including narrative descriptions for each position. Given this overlap in requirements, would USAID allow offerors to only include narrative text about the responsibilities of each position in the Table of Management Positions?

b. Accordingly, would USAID kindly amend page 144 of the solicitation to remove the requirement to include “general descriptions of all home office and field employees” in the Organizational Chart annex?

USAID Responses to Questions

USAID RESPONSE: USAID has changed the text of the RFP so that the organizational chart will not require general descriptions.

79. L.8. On page 144, USAID indicates that the Organizational Chart must include “general descriptions of all home office and field employees.” To avoid overcrowding the chart, would USAID consider allowing offerors to include these descriptions in a separate table?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 78.

80. To allow Offerors to respond to all of the elements of the Factor 4: Organizational Management and Staffing Plan section and adequately budget for travel expenses can USAID please confirm that PICFA will be run out of the newly opened Mission in Fiji?

USAID RESPONSE: . The main office for PICFA is expected to be located in Fiji.

81. RFP Reference: J.1.III; Page Number: 1 of 12 (Attachment J.1); Relevant RFP Language: “It will be implemented across the twelve Pacific Island nations where USAID works in the region...Nauru”

Nauru is included in the scope, but Department of State Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet for Nauru (U.S. Relations With Nauru - United States Department of State) states, “U.S. assistance to Nauru is restricted by U.S. law based on Nauru’s continuing recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”

This restriction could impact the budget allocation and assumptions, as well as targets, for PICFA.

Could USAID clarify what PICFA activities are allowed in Nauru?

USAID RESPONSE: Work in Nauru or any other Pacific island country will be subject to US Government regulations and funding authorities and developed during annual work planning.

82. RFP Reference: J.1.V;Page Number: 5-9 of 12 (Attachment J.1; Relevant RFP Language: “Offeror should propose measurable performance targets for the following indicators:”

Could USAID confirm that offerors are permitted to propose additional indicators outside of the ones listed in the SOO?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID encourages offerrors to propose any additional indicators above those listed in the SOO that are necessary and sufficient to support and measure the proposed activities.

83. RFP Reference: J.1.V; Page Number: 5-9 of 12 (Attachment J.1); Relevant RFP Language: “the contractor must achieve at a minimum the results listed below. Work under other objectives may also contribute to these results:” “At the output level, the Offeror should propose measurable performance targets for the following indicators:”

RFP Reference: L.7 Page Number: 138 Relevant RFP Language: “Results and/or Logical Framework”

Some indicators are required under multiple Objectives. For example, EG 11-4 is

USAID Responses to Questions listed under both Objective 1: Mobilize Climate Finance and Cross-Cutting Objective:

Effective and Streamlined Coordination of Climate Finance Through Various Partners and Access Modalities. For indicators counted under multiple Objectives, could USAID confirm that offerors may list these indicators one time (rather than listing the same indicator multiple times under separate Objectives)?

USAID RESPONSE: Offerors may list indicators more than one time. Indicators should be connected to the appropriate components of the necessary objectives within the PWS and other technical information.

84. RFP Reference: J.1.V; Page Number: 5-9 of 12 (Attachment J.1); Relevant RFP Language: “the contractor must achieve at a minimum the results listed below. Work under other objectives may also contribute to these results:”

All of the minimum results listed under the four Objectives include quantified targets. Could USAID confirm that offerors are permitted to propose those results as performance indicators?

USAID RESPONSE: The minimum results expected are provided. The offeror should choose performance targets that reflect their technical approach and support those minimum results.

85. RFP Reference: J.1.V; Page Number: 5-9 of 12 (Attachment J.1); Relevant RFP Language: “the contractor must achieve at a minimum the results listed below. Work under other objectives may also contribute to these results:” “At the output level, the Offeror should propose measurable performance targets for the following indicators:”

Under the Objectives, many of the minimum results seem to provide targets for the required performance indicators.