Analytical Services V Pre-solicitation Additional Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 105 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1735111
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document from a pre-solicitation conference for USAID's upcoming Analytical Services V (ASV) procurement. The document contains detailed responses to questions about the planned procurement of two contracts under GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) to small businesses, with a total ceiling of $70M over five years. Key details include: the contracts will be roughly equal in size/scope; tasks will be assigned (not competed) between the two contractors based on expertise and capacity; work will include conducting analyses, assessments and research related to democracy, human rights and governance; rapid response capabilities are required with 1-3 week mobilization timeframes; and local capacity strengthening is emphasized though Grants Under Contract are no longer planned.
The Q&A addresses procurement structure, evaluation criteria (technical factors weighted more heavily than price), anticipated September 2025 award date, and clarifies that while a DC office is not required, some DC-based work will be needed. Two key personnel positions are anticipated but specific staffing levels are left to offerors to propose. Primary work areas include political economy analyses, DRG assessments, and rapid technical assistance in transitional environments. The mechanism will allow for Mission buy-ins, with core DRG Bureau funding estimated at 20% ($15M) of the total ceiling. Products must be posted to the Development Experience Clearinghouse and DRGLinks, with contractors responsible for promoting utilization of deliverables.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Pre-Survey FAQs
| ASV Frequently Asked Questions PRE-SURVEY |
| Note: questions submitted that were submitted and answered on presentation slides are not included here. |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Number of awards; awardee types; Set-aside for 8a/WOSB/HUBZone/etc | Can USAID clarify why it intends to only issue 2 contract awards? | We believe having two ASV awards under the GSA MAS schedule will meet our needs, while providing maximum flexibility and efficiency. |
| Why is the government planning to reduce the number of awards? | We believe having two ASV awards under the GSA MAS schedule will meet our needs, while providing maximum flexibility and efficiency. | |
| Will the Government consider a set-aside for 8a ? | At this time, we do not anticipate set-asides within the MAS small business holder pool. | |
| Will USAID consider expanding the pool of awardees to at least 5 awards to GSA SB MAS holders to include various categories of SBs, including 8(a), WOSB, EDWOSB and SDVOSB? | At this time, we do not anticipate set-asides within the MAS small business holder pool. | |
| Will this be a WOSB? | At this time, we do not anticipate set-asides within the MAS small business holder pool. | |
| Other than small business, will there be another set aside for this opportunity? | At this time, we do not anticipate set-asides within the MAS small business holder pool. | |
| Do you anticipate set asides for various socio-economic groups such as HUBZone? | At this time, we do not anticipate set-asides within the MAS small business holder pool. | |
| Can USAID clarify whether it will ensure diversity in contract awards to avoid having only joint ventures being awarded under this mechanism? | ASV is open to all eligible GSA MAS Small Business contract holders and offers will be rated against the same evaluation criteria. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Distribution of tasks/LOE between the two contractors | Can USAID clarify if both contractors will be preparing similar ASV Menus of Options and Templates, as described on pages 9-10? Or will the two successful contractors be assigned a different set of services and products throughout the period of performance? Will the two contactors be competing for similar taskings or distinct taskings? | Both contractors will use common templates and the same ASV Menu of Options. USAID will decide which contractor will create which product. USAID will also assign the various taskings; the two contractors will not compete for similar or distinct taskings. |
| Can USAID clarify the expected level of integration between the two contractors awarded the ASV contracts? Specifically, are there any defined coordination mechanisms, shared performance metrics, or protocols for transferring taskings between contractors to ensure seamless implementation and avoid duplication of efforts? | USAID envisions several informal coordination mechanisms, e.g. regular meetings between the two ASV CORs to discuss work planning and implementation, as well as joint planning meetings between the two ASV CORs and contractors, etc. The ASV contractors will also use common performance measures and tools, as detailed in section C.8.b in the draft SOW. USAID also welcomes suggestions from offerors and potential offerors on ways to ensure seamless implementation and avoid duplication of efforts. | |
| Will both ASV contractors be invited together to participate in co-design of taskings, as described on page 11? Or will the ASV COR predetermine which of the two contactors will be invited to work with USAID, implementing partners and local stakeholders to co-design taskings? | USAID envisions that the ASV COR(s) will determine which of the two contractors will be invited to work with USAID, implementing partners, and local stakeholders to co-design taskings. However, USAID is open to suggestions on ways to increase collaboration, coordination, and cross-fertilization between the two ASV contractors. | |
| C.1 Purpose “The contracts will be roughly the same size and scope.” During prior market research, USAID indicated there would be two small business contracts with a possible division of geographic scope. Does USAID still plan on having delineation between the two contracts? If so, can USAID share the planned delineation at this time? | USAID does not anticipate a division of geographic scope. | |
| C.4.3 “in addition to the formal analyses to be conducted under objective four, detailed in section C.4.1” If USAID is contemplating adding an Objective Four to C.4.1, will USAID kindly provide more information on what it anticipates will be included in the objective that is not currently contemplated in the SOW? | This was a typo. It should read "...to be conducted under objective 1." | |
| C.7.c "Standard Operating Procedures." How does USAID plan on selecting which contractor fulfills specific commonly anticipated taskings? | Please see section C.7.d.ii | |
| C.7.d “Since there will be two ASV contracts, the CORs will decide which Contractor will implement each specific tasking.” Will USAID ensure CORs share their rationale for choosing the implementing contractor for specific taskings with both contractors at the time of notification? | To the greatest extent possible, the ASV COR(s) will strive to be transparent with their decision-making, including sharing their rationale for choosing the implementing contractor for specific taskings with both contractors. | |
| Can USAID more fully describe how they will choose which awarded contractor receives assignments, if contractors will be required to work together on any assignments, and/or how coordination in general will proceed? | Please see section C.7.d. for the specific tasking procedures. Section C.7.d.ii. notes that, "Since there will be two ASV contracts, the CORs will decide which Contractor will implement each specific tasking. This decision could be based on implementing partners’ comparative strengths (including regional expertise, experience with certain types of analysis, etc.), current workloads, or other considerations. CORs may also have conversations with the two award recipients to gauge their respective abilities to carry out the specific tasking. Additionally, Contractors can recommend work be directed to the other Contractor if they feel this would be beneficial to ASV implementation." |
USAID does not envision requiring contractors to work together on assignments.
USAID envisions several informal coordination mechanisms, e.g. regular meetings between the two ASV CORs to discuss work planning and implementation, as well as joint planning meetings between the two ASV CORs and contractors, etc. The ASV contractors will also use common performance measures and tools, as detailed in section C.8.b in the draft SOW. USAID also welcomes suggestions from offerors and potential offerors on ways to ensure seamless implementation and avoid duplication of efforts.
| How will the CORs prioritize tasking distribution between the two contractors? Will there be specific criteria or metrics (e.g., workload capacity, regional expertise, past performance) to ensure fair and efficient allocation? | Please see section C.7.d. for the specific tasking procedures. Section C.7.d.ii. notes that, "Since there will be two ASV contracts, the CORs will decide which Contractor will implement each specific tasking. This decision could be based on implementing partners’ comparative strengths (including regional expertise, experience with certain types of analysis, etc.), current workloads, or other considerations. CORs may also have conversations with the two award recipients to gauge their respective abilities to carry out the specific tasking. Additionally, Contractors can recommend work be directed to the other Contractor if they feel this would be beneficial to ASV implementation." | |
| How will the workload be divided between the two contractors, and what criteria will guide task assignment? | Please see section C.7.d. for the specific tasking procedures. Section C.7.d.ii. notes that, "Since there will be two ASV contracts, the CORs will decide which Contractor will implement each specific tasking. This decision could be based on implementing partners’ comparative strengths (including regional expertise, experience with certain types of analysis, etc.), current workloads, or other considerations. CORs may also have conversations with the two award recipients to gauge their respective abilities to carry out the specific tasking. Additionally, Contractors can recommend work be directed to the other Contractor if they feel this would be beneficial to ASV implementation." | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Local capacity strengthening | One area where there could be expanded focus is on the localization aspect, and the integration across all three of the objectives. | Thank you for the feedback. We will consider adding more detail in the SOW upon release of the RFTOP. |
| C.4.2 "Strengthen local capacity to conduct analytical work." Does USAID foresee using ASV to strengthen the organizational capacity of local stakeholders or only their technical capacity? | We look forward to offerors thoughts on how to address the local capacity strengthening component proposed for AS V. | |
| C.4.2 "Serve as a thought partner for USAID missions." What role does USAID anticipate the contractor holding under the “serve as a thought partner for USAID missions” objective? Would the contractor be filling the role of a thought leader, facilitator, or both? | USAID would anticipate the contractor fulfilling both of these roles, depending on the specific tasking. | |
| Both Objective 1 and Objective 2 refer to Political Economy Analyses (PEAs). Can USAID please clarify how the scope and focus of PEAs differ between these two objectives? For instance, is Objective 1 primarily centered around conducting PEAs, while Objective 2 emphasizes building local capacity to perform PEAs? | That is an appropriate interpretation of the draft materials. We anticipate that specific taskings will further clarify the PEA need under the mechanism objectives. | |
| We would like to learn more about local capacity strengthening and grants under contract, in particular | We look forward to offerors thoughts on how to address the local capacity strengthening component proposed for ASV. | |
| How does USAID envision the integration of local capacity strengthening in the execution of tasks under ASV? | We look forward to offerors thoughts on how to address the local capacity strengthening component proposed for ASV. | |
| Under Objective II, Strengthen local capacity to conduct analytical work, on pages 3 and 8, does USAID have specific selection criteria for the issuance of grants under contract and/or the range of awards over the life of the contract? Will there be plug figure for budgeting purposes? | Yes, we will include a plug figure in the RFTOP. | |
| Local Capacity Grants: Will USAID provide standard templates or guidance for Grants Under Contract, or should offerors propose a framework as part of their proposal? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| How will USAID measure the success of local capacity-building efforts under Objective II? Will there be specific indicators or evaluation frameworks provided during the solicitation process, or is the contractor expected to propose these as part of the implementation plan? | Offerors should propose a framework, which could include standard indicators or potential unique indicators, as part of their proposal. | |
| Under Grants Management, local partners contracted via GUC will primarily focus on work outlined under C.4.2. However, particularly for rapid technical and analytical, trusted local partners can be crucial for data collection needs, such as rapid key informant interviews. Is there flexibility to apply GUCs to C.4.1 or C.4.3 as well? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| How will ASV’s local capacity strengthening efforts align with USAID’s existing localization indicators, and are there any new benchmarks being introduced under this mechanism? | There are a variety of localization indicators. We would like the offeror to propose the most sensible in the 'spirit' of localization. | |
| What percentage of the ASV budget is anticipated to be allocated to the GUC mechanism, and how will USAID ensure these grants effectively contribute to program objectives? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| How should the contractor estimate costs for integrating local personnel and expertise into taskings, particularly under Objective II? Are there standard allowances or expectations for capacity-building efforts, such as training, mentorship, or grants under contract (GUCs)? | Costs should be reasonable, and the efforts effective. We will benchmark based on other USAID experiences. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Rapid response/transitional situations | Can you elaborate on scenarios or examples where rapid response technical assistance might be required? | When a country is experiencing rapid backsliding or an unexpected democratic opening and the USAID Mission would like technical assistance to adjust its strategy, program, or otherwise navigate the change. |
| Under Grants Management, local partners contracted via GUC will primarily focus on work outlined under C.4.2. However, particularly for rapid technical and analytical, trusted local partners can be crucial for data collection needs, such as rapid key informant interviews. Is there flexibility to apply GUCs to C.4.1 or C.4.3 as well? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| Are there established USAID best practices or preferred methodologies for rapidly identifying and onboarding consultants that bidders should consider when proposing solutions? | We are interested to see what offerors propose. | |
| Under Objective III, USAID emphasizes the importance of rapid mobilization and short-term technical assistance in transitional environments. Could USAID clarify the anticipated frequency and scale of such requests, as well as the contractor’s expected readiness level (e.g., pre-positioned personnel or pre-identified regional experts) to meet the 1-3 week mobilization timeline? This question will help clarify the operational and logistical expectations tied to this objective, ensuring you can appropriately plan for resource allocation and readiness. | It will be uneven and unpredictable. | |
| For rapid response under Objective III, should the contractor anticipate prepositioning staff or maintaining a standing team on retainer? If so, will costs related to readiness, such as retainer fees or expedited travel, be allowable in the budget? | Offerors should propose a rapid response structure they feel can best align to potential, though currently unknown, demand. | |
| What are the typical expectations for "rapid mobilization" within the 1-3 week timeframe mentioned? | In cases where rapid mobilization is required, USAID would expect activities to initiate within 1-3 weeks following COR approval of a Concept Note and Template. This could include fielding consultants, beginning an analysis or technical assistance remotely or a combination of the two. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Dissemination and utilization | Utilization Metrics: Will USAID provide metrics or benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of analytical services, such as timeliness, relevance, or actionable outcomes? | Please see Section C.8.b of the SOW, which outlines the specific utilization tracking/measuring tools that will be developed. |
| Dissemination Requirements: Are there specific platforms or formats USAID prefers for disseminating analytical findings and reports to maximize accessibility and uptake? | At a minimum, AS V reports must be posted on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and DRGLinks. Depending on the product, it may be posted on other platforms or formats. Beyond this requirement, we look forward to offerors' proposals around how to best disseminate findings and maximize recommendation implementation. | |
| Can USAID provide examples of dissemination plans that have been successful under previous mechanisms like ASIV? | Please see this draft Utilization Promotion Checklist: Copy of Utilization Promotion Checklist (template) | |
| The SOW emphasizes the need for robust dissemination plans for tasking deliverables. Can USAID elaborate on its preferred formats, platforms, and outreach strategies for ensuring findings reach both technical and practitioner audiences effectively? | There will be considerable variation of dissemination plans for tasking deliverables. | |
| Will the development and implementation of robust dissemination plans (e.g., producing tailored deliverables, organizing workshops, or publishing findings) be considered a direct cost for taskings, or should this be included in overhead or indirect costs? | We will likely include a separate "utilization" tasking that will include the development and implementation of robust dissemination plans. This tasking will likely be commissioned by the DRG Bureau in support of all of the taskings carried out under ASV. | |
| What role does USAID see contractors playing in ensuring that ASV deliverables are utilized effectively by Missions and operating units, and are there specific expectations around dissemination or engagement strategies? | Please see Section C.8.b of the SOW, which outlines the specific utilization tracking/measuring tools that will be developed. Many of the details will be defined as these tools are developed and approved. We also look forward to hearing offerors' approaches to promoting the utilization of ASV deliverables. | |
| On page 3, USAID/DRG notes some of the reasons why a “lack of utilization of research findings” is a persistent challenge. Can USAID share examples that may be emulated in which research findings were efficiently and effectively utilized within the Bureau and at the Mission-level? | Please see this example: Guatemala Infographic_Final_02_508.pdf. | |
| In Section C.2, SOW discusses the challenge of evidence utilization and states that the contractor will be responsible for mitigating multiple external factors. We have the following questions regarding this: |
a. Can the DRG Bureau discuss its efforts to improve utilization?
b. Does the DRG Bureau see these efforts as endemic to the contractor’s work (i.e will the contractor be responsible for working with Missions and other Bureaus to improve utilization), or will the Bureau contract specialized services to specifically address, uptake, and usage issues separate from the analytical service provided? a. The DRG Bureau's Evidence & Learning (E&L) Team has undertaken several initiatives aimed at improving utilization. E&L created this guidance document, among other tools, which outlines best practices for promoting utilization throughout taskings.
b. The ASV contractors will be responsible for working with the ASV COR, Missions, and other Bureaus to promote utilization of ASV analytical products. We do not envision contracting specialized services to specifically address, uptake, and usage issues separate from the analytical service provided.
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Procurement/contract | Is this a new requirement or contract renewal? If re-compete, what is the current contract number? | This is a re-compete. This work was previously done under multiple contracts issued under solicitation SOL-OAA-16-000175. |
| Will the Government be changing the Solicitation Number upon RFP release? | There will be a formal number assigned when the solicitation is released, and this number will be added to its posting on the Business Forecast. | |
| A recent AidKonekt call hinted that the incoming administration may change course and push back against category management requirements for technical work, thereby limiting the use of GSA vehicles like MAS to operational support (e.g., IT and M&E), and re-shifting OAA's focus to the use of technical IDIQs. Does this potential policy change impact how the DRG Bureau plans to solicit offerors? | USAID follows all established regulatory guidelines. We do not make decisions based on hypothetical or speculative future changes. We anticipate using the GSA MAS mechanism to procure this award at this time. | |
| Would eligible small businesses with relevant past performance need to have a NICRA already in place in order to be eligible for this opportunity? | Eligibility is restricted to GSA MAS Small Business schedule holders. You would use the negotiated indirect cost agreement under your MAS contract. | |
| Will USAID consider not using GSA MAS to allow all small businesses to participate in this procurement? | This procurement is anticipated to be under the GSA MAS mechanism as a total small-business set-aside. | |
| Does USAID anticipate a phased solicitation or going straight to full proposal? | This procurement is not anticipated to use a phased solicitation at this time. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| ASV Services offered | Under C.4. Statement of Work, p. 4, USAID lists the types of DRG-related analyses, assessments and research likely to be part of tasking requests. Does USAID anticipate issuing tasking requests that include cost-benefit analysis or costing exercises? | In each Tasking Request Form, there will likely be a "budget" section that includes the budget parameters, as applicable - can be a ceiling or a range, per the customer’s preference. This is also a place where the contractor may propose a budget for USAID consideration and negotiation, which could include a cost-benefit analysis. |
| In line with its incorporation of USAID’s DRG Strategy, would the DRG Bureau consider including in the Statement of Work a specific reference to potential analytical needs related to the testing, application, or integration of social and behavioral science-based approaches to DRG? | We will consider this. | |
| Can USAID clarify whether the ASV Menu of Options is limited to the specific activities and types of support outlined under the three main objectives in the SOW or if it could potentially include additional services and approaches not explicitly mentioned? | The ASV Menu of Options should include all services offered under the ASV contract. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| processes/grants administration | Dissemination Requirements: Are there specific platforms or formats USAID prefers for disseminating analytical findings and reports to maximize accessibility and uptake? | At a minimum, ASV reports must be posted on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and DRGLinks. Depending on the product, it may be posted on other platforms or formats. Beyond this requirement, we look forward to offerors' proposals around how to best disseminate findings and maximize recommendation implementation. |
| Local Capacity Grants: Will USAID provide standard templates or guidance for Grants Under Contract, or should offerors propose a framework as part of their proposal? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| Will USAID provide a comprehensive summary of lessons learned from Analytical Services IV to guide tasking structures or methodology selection under ASV? | USAID does not envision sharing additional lessons learned beyond those that were shared during the pre-solicitation conference and those that are outlined in Section C.2 of the SOW. | |
| Integration with Other Mechanisms: How will ASV coordinate with other USAID contracts or initiatives, such as those supporting training or long-term DRG programming? | USAID does not envision requiring contractors to work together on assignments. |
USAID envisions several informal coordination mechanisms, i.e. regular meetings between the relevant USAID CORs to discuss work planning and implementation, as well as joint planning meetings between the two ASV CORs and contractors, etc. The CORs may organize planning meetings with other implementing partners as needed.
| How will Grants under Contracts (GUC- section C.5) be treated under the GSA-MAS contract? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| Can USAID say more about the GUC approach? Is it a requirement to conduct a competitive grant making process each time, or is there the possibility to work with pre-identified local partners? Will USAID always be involved in the selection, or only in approvals? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| To “serve a as a thought partner […] on a continuous basis with Missions”, it may be necessary to maintain networks or communities of practice with stakeholders between contracts. Are there opportunities under the IDIQ to fund such continuous engagement other than discreet assessment work? | This is to be determined. | |
| C.7.d Under Subheading IV, does ‘seven days’ mean seven business days or seven calendar days? | This refers to calendar days. | |
| Will the opportunities under this mechanism be competitive, and can you clarify whether they will be structured as task orders or as a buy-in mechanism? We recommend structuring ASV as a buy-in mechanism rather than competitive task orders, as buy-ins allow for greater flexibility and responsiveness to mission needs. For example, IPI's BE4D project operates with two awardees (one small, one large), functioning effectively as a buy-in model that supports diverse implementers and promotes steady funding flows. | This will likely be a buy-in mechanism. | |
| Under “Standard Operating Procedures”, the draft SOW states that “within 45 business days, the Contractor will develop and receive COR approval of Standard Operating Procedures for the most commonly anticipated taskings, such as PEAs and DRG Assessments.” This is a very short window to develop SOPs at the level of methodological detail requested. Recommend completing this activity within the first 90 days rather than 45 days. | We will consider this request. | |
| Will the two awarded contractors be required to market the ASV vehicle and facilitate buy-ins or will this fall on USAID? | USAID will be responsible for marketing ASV and facilitating buy-ins. | |
| Section c. Rapid Mobilization (pg 7) notes initiation within 1-3 weeks of a concept note approval. Is that timeline only illustrative contexts deemed transitional environments specifically? Or is it illustrative of the timeline for all services mobilized under C.4.3 “Provide rapid response technical assistance…”? | The 1-3 week illustrative timeline is anticipated in rare circumstances when a rapid response is required, as opposed to all services mobilized under C.4.3. | |
| Consultant Onboarding: Are there established USAID best practices or preferred methodologies for rapidly identifying and onboarding consultants that bidders should consider when proposing solutions? | We will rely on bidders to propose their own best practices and preferred methodologies for rapidly identifying and onboarding consultants. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Methods/Approaches | The SOW notes USAID's comfort with PEAs that follow "USAID or other established frameworks." Can USAID specify any other stipulations on qualifying PEA frameworks or methodologies? | There is no additional information available at this time. |
| The SOW does not mention the use or integration of Artificial Intelligence. Does USAID have any strictures or restrictions on the use of AI in refining and orienting various assessments and analysis? | AI guidelines are still evolving, but at the moment can only be used in refining and orienting publicly available information. | |
| To what extent does ASV foresee analytic services to rely on secondary data versus primary data collection? Does this differ for analytics needs in rapidly changing transitional vs. more stable environments? Does the COR/USAID plan to facilitate Contractors’ access to privileged secondary data available to DRG or Missions when relevant to a given assignment? | There may be times when a literature review or another type of secondary data collection may be required. The COR may help facilitate access to relevant Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) documents. | |
| What opportunities will contractors have to provide input or feedback on the templates and SOPs for DRG assessments, PEAs, and other key tasks? | We anticipate that the contractors will create and/or provide significant input into the SOPs for DRG assessments, PEAs, and other key tasks. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Budget/cost/pricing | Please explain how pricing will be evaluated at the proposal stage given “the ceiling of the procurement is $70M over five years. USAID intends to award two contracts under ASV to small business offerors in the General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule MAS). The contracts will be roughly the same size and scope.” Will USAID be using a factor of cost reasonableness over best value given the implied intent of two similar size awards? What factors does USAID consider important for pricing? | For overall evaluation purposes, we are planning that technical factors will be significantly more important than price factors. USAID will conduct a price analysis to include an evaluation of the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed and will determine if the total price is fair and reasonable. |
| Budget Flexibility: To what extent will contractors have discretion in reallocating budgets within a task order to meet emerging needs? | USAID will strive to allow for maximum budget flexibility. | |
| Since the contract allows for Mission and Operating Unit buy-ins, how does USAID anticipate funding flow under this mechanism? Are there any historical trends under predecessor similar contracts or projections regarding the distribution of taskings and budget allocation across Missions or regions? | The DRG Bureau will likely provide some annual funding under this mechanism. However, the buy-ins may be uneven and unpredictable. | |
| How should the contractor estimate costs for integrating local personnel and expertise into taskings, particularly under Objective II? Are there standard allowances or expectations for capacity-building efforts, such as training, mentorship, or grants under contract (GUCs)? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. Offerors should propose cost estimates based on their respective technical approaches. USAID does not have standard allowances or expectations for capacity-building efforts at this time. | |
| Will the development and implementation of robust dissemination plans (e.g., producing tailored deliverables, organizing workshops, or publishing findings) be considered a direct cost for taskings, or should this be included in overhead or indirect costs? | We will likely include a separate "utilization" tasking that will include the development and implementation of robust dissemination plans. This tasking will likely be commissioned by the DRG Bureau in support of all of the taskings carried out under ASV. | |
| The draft SOW mentions that "Balanced Level of Effort (LOE) for home office personnel is vital." Will the new contract allow a budget for core home office staff LOE to manage recruitment, contractual reporting and compliance? | Yes | |
| What percentage of the ASV budget is anticipated to be allocated to the GUC mechanism, and how will USAID ensure these grants effectively contribute to program objectives? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| What is the estimated value of grants under contract? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| What will be the average size of grants under contract envisaged by USAID? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. | |
| BUCKET | RELATED QUESTIONS | RESPONSE |
| Conflict zones | Does ASV foresee requiring services in any rapid-onset or active conflict emergencies? Are such environments considered “transitional” as mentioned in C.4.3? | While possible, it is not anticipated at this time. |
| For how many taskings, particularly in conflict-affected areas, should the cost proposal account for provisions related to security services, such as risk assessments, personal security, or evacuation plans? | Offerors should use their best judgment when costing out different scenarios. However, there is unlikely to be significant work in conflict-affected areas. |
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FGxwElyU5lgEeMCyHNlCxFzgvNrqHrzUTRyDA3h_ols/edit?gid=0https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VM03FQmBQ2U72ct9sNM9JX6dBlp2sdf9/view?usp=share_linkhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrI5EhP1oSfdgnhnY_YR3xJh76HTUKsaRhQl798kxfo/edit?tab=t.0 Pre-Survey One-off Qs
| QUESTION | RESPONSE |
| Will USAID consider providing a draft RFP? | If timing permits, we will consider this. |
| What types of Data will you be ingesting? OSINT, BI, Risk, Finance, PAI, 3rd Party OEM ADS | We do not anticipate these requirements at this time. |
| We encourage USAID to consider the importance of economic analysis or GESI analysis. | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. |
| Budget Flexibility: To what extent will contractors have discretion in reallocating budgets within a task order to meet emerging needs? | USAID will strive to allow for maximum budget flexibility. |
| Task Prioritization: Can USAID clarify how competing task orders under the ASV mechanism will be prioritized, especially during high-demand periods? | USAID anticipates that the selected offerors will have demonstrated - in their respective proposals - their ability to fully address USAID's needs, even during high-demand periods. |
| Under C.4. Statement of Work, p. 4, USAID lists the types of DRG-related analyses, assessments and research likely to be part of tasking requests. Does USAID anticipate issuing tasking requests that include cost-benefit analysis or costing exercises? | In each Tasking Request Form, there will likely be a "budget" section that includes the budget parameters, as applicable - can be a ceiling or a range, per the customer’s preference. This is also a place where the contractor may propose a budget for USAID consideration and negotiation, which could include a cost-benefit analysis. |
| The SOW emphasizes cross-cutting or cross-sectoral issues such as gender equality and women’s empowerment, does this emphasis on gender extend to social inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable populations and intersectionality as well? | Yes |
| In line with its incorporation of USAID’s DRG Strategy, would the DRG Bureau consider including in the Statement of Work a specific reference to potential analytical needs related to the testing, application, or integration of social and behavioral science-based approaches to DRG? | We will consider this. |
| USAID notes that ASV will be managed by and receive funding from the DRG Bureau. Could you share any estimates of what the core funding might look like for this mechanism? From our experience, having a healthy amount of core funding significantly enhances planning, staffing, and revenue stability. It also allows for more consistent technical management, which can help achieve the overarching objectives of the mechanism. | We estimate that around 20% or $15m of the $70m of core funding would be provided by the DRG Bureau over the life of the activity. |
| Would USAID please provide examples of previous task-orders issued under ASIV IDIQ for reference? | Please see Section C.2 of the SOW; several ASIV task orders are listed there. |
| What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local stakeholders and USAID Mission teams are adequately involved in co-designing and implementing taskings? | We look forward to offerors' thoughts on how they plan to ensure that local stakeholders and USAID Mission teams are adequate in co-designing and implementing taskings, when applicable. |
| What is the average or range of durations for any given assignment based on the previous ASVIV contract? | The durations of any given assignment can vary signficantly. |
| How does USAID plan to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of ASV activities, particularly in achieving its three primary objectives? | Please see Section C.8 of the SOW. |
| Can USAID describe the anticipated evaluation criteria and how it will be weighed? What will the areas of focus be? | We anticipate four technical evaluation factors, which will be weighted equally: 1) Technical Approach, 2) Management Approach and Institutional Capacity, 3) Scenarios, and 4) Contractor Performance Information. |
Post-Survey Questions
| ASV Questions Submitted in POST-SURVEY | |
| QUESTION | RESPONSE |
| Could USAID please clarify whether the contractor is expected to have an office in Washington, DC? | The bulk of tasking work under this award is expected to be remote or in the field. Therefore, the contractor does not need to have an office in Washington, DC. Nevertheless, report dissemination and other activities would require some activity in Washington, DC. Offerors should therefore budget accordingly for periodic travel to the DC area for Assessment team members or relevant headquarters staff. |
| Could USAID please clarfiy whether remote work is authorized for key personnel? | We are not able to answer this question without more clarity around the overall staffing pattern proposed. |
| Could USAID please clarify whether the key personnel will be employed full time under the IDIQ (and not only under task orders)? | Offerors should propose levels of effort they deem appropriate based on the proposed staffing plan, keeping in mind the likely fluctuations in tasking demand. |
| Will contractors be able to propose key personnel in addition to those specified in the solicitation for the IDIQ? | Offerors are welcome to propose alternative or additional key personnel as part of their submitted staffing plan. At this time we currently anticipate including two key personnel only. |
| I am still not full comprehending how the task orders will be distributed between the two awardees. Will they not be competing against each other? | Distribution of taskings between the two awardees will not be competed, but determined based on tasking requirements and the expertise and capacity of the holders. COR considerations could include but would not necessarily be limited to: comparative country, technical, or environmental expertise applicable to the tasking; existing tasking workload; or other factors specific to the tasking requirements. |
| Does USAID plan to ingest OSINT or PAI Data for the purposes of Business Intelligence, Financial Risk, Vendor Threat Mitigation, Supply Chain Risk Data Analytics and/or Due Diligence on contractors or Investigative Research Services? | We do not anticipate these requirements at this time. |
| Is it possible to have GUCs with GSA MAS? GSA sits under a different part of the FAR and it is a procurement mechanism. In order for there to be GUCs, the GSA contract itself would have to have the GUC clause which it doesn’t. Therefore, any orders under the schedule would need to incorporate GUCs as off-schedule purchases. If this is the case, would we be able to charge indirects or fee on GUCs? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. |
| When is the award date? | While USAID hopes to award contracts by September 30, 2025, we cannot guarantee the award date at this time. |
| Will several task orders be set as small business set aside only? | The two ASV task orders are likely to be small business set-asides. However, additional set-asides are not anticipated for specific taskings under the two awards currently envisioned. |
| Please clarify any requirements for SBA MPP JVs to compete for this proposed opportunity. | The JV under the MPP would have to have its own GSA MAS contract, as that JV, with the protege meeting the classification standard of a small business. |
| How many awards are you anticipating? | We anticipate making two awards. |
| Where's the slide deck for the conference? | The slide deck has been uploaded to SAM under Notice ID RFQ1735111 and on eBuy under RFQ1737317. |
| Will there be any requirements for access to classified materials/systems? | We do not anticipate such a requirement, but there is a high likelihood that a NDA will be required in order to share internal documentation, including that which is designated as Sensitive but Unclassified. |
| Will there be a plug figure for GUCs? | We no longer plan to include a GUC component under ASV. |
| How will cost be assessed? | For overall evaluation purposes, we are planning that technical factors will be significantly more important than price factors. USAID will conduct a price analysis to include an evaluation of the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed and will determine if the total price is fair and reasonable. |
| Are there specific regions that USAID would like us to show our ability to work in? | This award will be global in nature, so while indication of offeror specialization in specific regions is welcome, global/generalized knowledge/ability to field high quality teams in any USAID presence country is broadly required. |
| Following the meeting, we would appreciate further clarification on how USAID plans to distribute work under the task order between the two awardees. We understand this will be at the discretion of the COR, with a collaborative allocation of tasks in mind. Any additional details on how this process will be managed would be helpful. | We do not have additional information to share at this time, but could envision that COR consideration could include: comparative country, technical, or environmental expertise applicable to the tasking; existing tasking workload; or other factors specific to the tasking requirements. |
| Greater clarification and consideration of the weight of Factor 4: Past Performance, and clarify if there will be "full L & M sections”? | At present, we anticipate that all technical evaluation criteria will be equally weighted, though this, like all information pre-solicitation, is subject to change. Instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria will be full sections of the RFTOP package. |
| More information regarding Factor 2: Technical Approach? | We do not have additional information to share at this time. |
| More information regarding Factor 3: Scenarios? Are the three scenarios intended to be based on current DRG needs in specific countries or more generic case studies? | The three scenarios will likely build on lessons learned from past analytical mechanism experiences. They are not country-specific. |
| Under Objective 2, building local capacity, does USAID anticipate the contractors will identify and recruit new local partners or will USAID Missions indicate already engaged local partners that they believe would benefit most from capacity building support? | We could envision both outcomes suggested here as likely possibilities depending on the country context. |
| Could USAID clarify if rapid response technical expertise for strategic communications pertains to USAID Missions or to government counterparts? | Technical expertise for strategic communications would pertain to the tasking USAID Operating Unit, whether overseas or at Headquarters. There could be instances in which recommendations related to host country counterparts might be a tasking component, but it is difficult to predict at this stage. |
| Please clarify the vision for the Key Personnel positions referenced during the bidders conference. Are the positions expected engaged full-time? Will some sort “Core” management task be released that will the support the Key Personnel positions? If a core management task (exclusive of technical activity orders) is not envisioned and funded then what is the rationale for Key Personnel. Would the commitment of Key Personnel at the Activity/Order level be more consistent with addressing the risk mitigating expectation of Key Personnel positions? | Offerors should propose levels of effort they deem appropriate for Key Personnel positions in the context of the proposed staffing plan, keeping in mind the likely fluctuations in tasking demand. |
| How will pricing be evaluated? Will an indicative level of effort be provided across the contract period of performance to build-up a price toward the defined award values and using the bidders GSA MAS labor categories. Alternatively, will the government could request pricing for one of the scenarios which would require sufficient scope detail to build-up the cost. | For overall evaluation purposes, we are planning that technical factors will be significantly more important than price factors. USAID will conduct a price analysis to include an evaluation of the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed and will determine if the total price is fair and reasonable. |
| Is the government envisioning unique labor categories for the contract that will be mapped to the bidders pre-existing GSA MAS labor categories? | USAID envisions that bidders will use the pre-existing GSA MAS labor categories. |
https://sam.gov/opp/1bf379167c2a4c928ebea7ff0ec66cae/view
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .