Attachment_1_-_Questions_ _Answers.pdf

Questions and Answers

1. If the hard copy submission is due on February 18, the actual proposal will need to be completed a week before the deadline to enable its transportation to Islamabad and then the usual two days’ clearance at the USAID Mission before its delivery to the OAA office. In view of this, can the RFP response due date be extended?

2. Would USAID/Pakistan consider eliminating the requirement for hard copy submissions? Or would USAID consider extending the deadline for hard copy submissions to 10 days after the electronic submission deadline? Given the time needed to ship proposals and process them through embassy security, offerors may not have received responses to questions prior to shipping; if offerors have received responses to questions, they may not have time to incorporate changes required by responses prior to shipping.

3. Section L.4.1.2 states that “The applicant must submit 1) Four copies of the technical proposal (one original signed by the Offeror’s authorized representative and four copies)…” Please confirm whether USAID would like four hard copies of the technical proposal (one original and three copies), or five hard copies (one original and four copies).

The Solicitation is amended and now only requires Electronic Submission. Please delete section L.4.1.2 Hard Copy Submission.

4. Cover letter: USAID writes that it plans to award a five-year CPFF term-type contract with

15,000 days of professional labor. The forecast mentions a wide range of $10-25 million and the RFP has blanks or “[TBD]” for the project budget maximum. Does USAID have an estimated contract value for this project?

Based upon available funding and USAID’s internal cost estimation, the total estimated cost of this project is projected to fall within $10M to $20M.

5. Section F.4.7 Security Plan. Please clarify if the separate budget for the security plan should be included in the Cost Proposal and does it fall within the value range stated in the forecast?

Per L.7.4(e) (page 86) security considerations must be adequately budgeted and explained in the budget narrative. Therefore, security costs must be included in the Cost Proposal. Security costs are considered to fall within the value range stated for total estimated cost of this action. The security cost budget shall be included in the Detailed Budget and discussed in the Budget Narrative. The allocation of security costs to the categories listed in the Summary Budget will be left to the discretion of the offeror.

6. In Section L.6.1 of the RFP, it stipulates that “Offerors shall use 12 pt. font Arial or Times font with 1.5 line spacing.” This requirement gives offerors very little space to write the highly technical proposal required by this RFP. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to use 11 point font and 1.15 or 1 line spacing in the narrative of the technical proposal? If not, does the requirement 1.5 spacing requirement apply to the CVs and other sections to be included in the annex? Would USAID consider increasing the page limit for key personnel CVs to three pages to allow adequate space to show our candidates’ qualifications?

No, the offerror needs to comply with section L.6.1 Requirements, however, this requirement is not applicable on the annexures.

7. Is it permissible to engage with sub-contractors providing professional services on a firm-fixed-price basis (i.e., without a LoE break-down) or a T&M contract with fully-burdened fixed daily rates?

For subcontractors providing professional services, subcontracts will need to include a LOE breakdown because their work will count toward the overall contract LOE.

8. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity?

No.

9. What is the maximum size of e-mail attachments that USAID/Pakistan is able to accept?

The Offeror must limit the size of its attachments to 5MB per e-mail. If a proposal cannot be sent in a single email due to its size, it is acceptable to send several emails. In this case, applicants must label each email (Submission # of #) in order to ensure that all portions are received.

10. Section L.6.3.2 states that “Resumes/CVs for all key personnel candidates which shall not exceed two pages in length. Professional experience must be stated in chronological order starting with the most recent position. (Note: CVs/Resumes for staff who are not proposed as Key Personnel and short term technical staff integral to the implementation of the activity will not be evaluated and should not be submitted).” Please confirm that offerors are to include CVs for key personnel only.

Offerors are to submit CVs for Key Personnel only.

11. Page 33, Section F.7.14 Security Plan: In the last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading, USAID writes, “The plan will be based on the initial security plan submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal.” Attachment J.8 of the RFP contains a Sample Format for Initial Security Plan. However, no security plan is included in the lists of annexes on page 78 or in section L.6.3. Please confirm that no security plan is required in this proposal, or should offerors include a draft security plan as an annex to the technical proposal?

Section L.7.4 is being amended as follows:

“The successful Offerror will be required to submit a security plan; However the Contractor must ensure that security considerations are adequately budgeted for and explained in the budget narrative. See Attachment J.8 for a sample security plan. Also see Section H.16”.

12. P. 7-8, Section B.7: This section states “The contracting officer will release 75 percent of all fee withholds under this contract after receipt of the certified final indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical completion of this contract…”. Could USAID clarify why the implementer will not receive 100% of the fee withholds under the contract after submitting its final, audited indirect cost rates?

This requirement is in line with FAR Clause 52.216-8 Fixed Fee.

13. Section F.4, Work days Ordered, makes no mention of the 15,000 days stated in the cover letter.

Would USAID revise this section?

The ceiling for Workdays Ordered in F.4 is 15,000 days. The successful offeror’s proposed number of days will be plugged in F.4.

14. P. 8, Section B.8: Are offerors expected to provide cancellation ceilings at the proposal stage?

In addition, could USAID provide the rationale for including a multicontract year requirement given that USAID is an agency that already has advance contracting authority in Sec. 635(h) of the FAA, allowing USAID to contract in advance for up to five years at a time and obviating the need to use a multi-year contract provision?

Offeror is not required to propose a ceiling. This ceiling will be determined based on the Offeror’s final proposed yearly budget in line with FAR 17.106. This contract will be incrementally funded in line with the Agency established policies. The inclusion of cancellation ceilings has been recommended as an Agency best practice.

15. Page 43 (g), Work week: USAID authorizes a six-day work week for overseas employees;

however, the first sentence states the work week shall not be for less than 40 hours. Would USAID change this to read 48 hours to agree with the last sentence of the paragraph?

Six-day work week (48hrs) is authorized for overseas employees under this contract; however, the contractor may propose a five-day work week (40hrs) in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies. A five day work week is authorized for full time staff under this contract and a six day work week can be authorized for Short Term Technical Assistance (STTA) on a case-by-case basis.

16. References to TOCO (Task Order Contracting Officer) appear throughout the solicitation starting in Section H.6. Since this is not a task order could such references be revised to state

CO?

The solicitation is being revised to replace TOCO by CO.

17. On page 72, K.14 seems to be misplaced. Does USAID want each proposed key personnel candidate to sign the certification form? If so, could USAID provide a revised Section K with this section removed? May offerors include the signed certification for key personnel candidates along with the key personnel letters of commitment included as an annex to the technical proposal?

Yes, each key personnel is required to provide this certification. The offeror shall include the signed certification in accordance with section L.7.5.4(a) of the solicitation. Thus, as an annex to the cost proposal, a signed K.14 certification must be submitted for each proposed Key Personnel candidate.

18. USAID refers to “major” subcontractors” multiple times in the instructions for technical and cost proposals (e.g., page 81, L.6.3.3 and page 87, Section L.7.5.4). This term is never defined.

Please clarify what constitutes a major subcontractor.

A major subcontractor shall mean any anticipated subcontractor will a total value of subcontract over $1 million. Per Section L, there are certain informational requests for which we will only be requiring responses by major subcontractors. (See L 6.3.3, L 7.5.4, L 7.5.6, and L 7.5.7).

19. Page 83, Section L.7.1 SF33: USAID instructs offers to include a competed SF33 with the proposal. No template for the SF33 is provided. Could USAID provide the template, please?

SF33 is being incorporated in the revised solicitation.

20. Pages 84-88, Section L.7.2 Cost Proposal Content: The order in which cost proposal contents are requested seems unfriendly to the reader. For example, bio data forms are requested as an annex to the proposal rather than in the proposed cost and prices section. Would USAID reconsider the order of the cost proposal to make it more intuitive to the reader, please?

21. P. 85, Section L.7.3(e): This section instructs offerors to “include an analysis that it is more advantageous to purchase than lease.” May offerors include a purchase vs. lease analysis for only high-cost items such as vehicles?

This requirement is given as an example. The offerors are expected to provide sufficient information in their budget narrative to allow USAID to evaluate cost in accordance with Section M.3 of the solicitation.

22. P. 86, Section L.7.3(g): Please confirm that indirect cost rate ceilings are not required for this proposal. In this section USAID states “Offerors should propose indirect cost rate ceilings per Section B.5 of the RFP. However Section B.5 of the RFP does not request this information.

The requirement for Indirect cost rate ceiling is being removed from Section L.7.3(g) in the revised solicitation.

23. Sub-contractor letters of commitment are requested in two locations for the cost proposal, Section L.7.5.3 Sub-Contractor Information (a) and L.7.5.8 Letters of Commitment. Could USAID clarify where in the cost proposal letters should be submitted, please?

The subcontractor letters of commitment shall be submitted as part of the cost proposal as required in section L.7.5.8.

24. What is the status of the Debt Marketing Working Group (DMWG) mentioned in the RFP? We understand that the DMWG has been in existence for quite some time, so is the project’s role to re-initiate it or form an entirely new working group?

The DMWG as envisaged under the project does not exist. It is expected that the awardee will organize this body.

25. What is the weighted balance between public sector debt (bond) issuance and that for private sector companies?

Estimates of domestic debt outstanding of the national government and that for private sector companies (the corporate bond market) can be readily found in public documents available on the Internet. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank Publications are two such sources.

26. Under Task 2, d) the RPF states that "iii) Ensuring transparent listing of sovereign debt securities meeting international best practices; iv) Strengthening the recently established "Price Discovery System" promoting the availability of free and accurate information; g) Submit an action plan clearly indicating how the Contractor will support the strengthening of the Price Discovery System at the SECP; i) Submit an action plan clearly indicating how the Contractor would improve clearing, settlement, and the gains accrued as a direct result of USG assistance.”

• Will USAID please provide further information regarding these systems and does

USAID envision that the contractor provide system re-engineering and design work to achieve these activities?

No additional information regarding said systems will be provided under this solicitation. The Awardee is expected to evaluate the Price Discovery System at the SECP in the context of its intended purpose and determine what, if anything, it may require to fill any significant gaps. The awardee is not expected to provide system reengineering and design work in respect of this activity. Same would apply to the clearing, settlement, and depository systems.

27. Under Task 2, e) the RFP states that “Improve clearing, settlement and depository/custodian functions through targeted advisory and technical support to the National Clearing company of Pakistan Limited (NCCPL) and the Central Depository Company Limited (CDC).”

• Will USAID please provide further information regarding both the clearing and settlement systems and the depository/custodian systems?

No additional information regarding said systems will be provided under this solicitation. The Awardee is expected to evaluate the clearing, settlement, and depository functions and supporting systems to determine what, if anything, they may require to fill any significant gaps in the context of debt instruments and debt trading activities.

• Does USAID envision that the contractor will provide system reengineering and design work to achieve this activity?

The awardee is not expected to provide system reengineering and design work in respect of this activity.

28. Under Task 2, f) the RFP states that "Partner with selected private sector banks and brokerage firms to improve their ability to become “market makers.”

• Is USAID implying that the contractor should enter into a contractual or ownership relationship with these firms to achieve this activity? Or is USAID implying that the contractor would work with and encourage these firms to become "market makers?"

The awardee would be expected to, in collaboration with the respective regulators (i.e., SBP or SECP), work with and encourage these firms to become market makers. No contractual or ownership relationship is envisaged.

29. Sections C1-3 on pages 9-12 alludes to the need to not only focus on sovereign debt but also private market debt. However in Tasks 1 and 2, there is little mention of working with the various stakeholders in making the private debt market more robust. We understand the links between a robust sovereign debt market as a basis and reference point for private debt capital markets. However, as we understand it, there are two phenomena that affect the private debt markets. One is that the sovereign debt market is crowding out corporate debt (we have heard statistics that SME lending went from 17% of total bank portfolios to less than 10%, as banks are the main buyers of sovereign Pakistani debt). The other is that while banks are well positioned to directly lend to certain sectors and types of companies through standard commercial bank lending (though not as much for SMEs), other parts of a potential private debt capital market, such as bond markets and securitization markets, are rather nascent or plateauing.

• How are we to respond to the needs of the private sector for debt capital on public markets? If there is more clarification and a need to focus on private debt capital markets, Tasks 1 and 2 could possibly tie-in better to Task 3.

While a robust, efficient, and inclusive debt capital market will likely benefit not only the government as anchor issuer but also private sector issuers, it is not anticipated that private sector debt issuance will be a significant part of this contract. However, on the investor side, investor education should probably include fixed income products more broadly, including corporate instruments, and not be limited to government instruments.

30. The deliverables for this component on page 18-19 Section C.4.3.2 only go out to 18 months of possible TA without mention of the types of activities, such as training events and 1:1 sessions with bank management. In Section C.3.1 Scope, the last paragraph, last sentence on page 10 says “technical assistance….short-term activity”.

• In our experience, it can take much longer to develop strategies, new products, and train staff to improve actual lending outcomes and given the overall project is for 5 years, we would recommend a longer period for Task 3. Therefore, is Task 3 only supposed to be a short-term activity of less than two years?

The support provided under Task 3 is expected to be demand driven and must be based on individual requirements of each bank participating in the DCA Activity. Since it is not expected that the Offeror would need to build up capacity from scratch, long-term engagement is not envisaged. Support may be provided after the initial 18 months if required by the banks and approved by the COR.

31. Information on the actual DCA agreements with the banks: there is not much information on the guarantee agreements between the DCA banks and USAID. In our experience, there has often been a decision to focus on certain SME sectors; for example, on agriculture and tourism.

• Are there specific agreements or understanding with the banks on where the sector focus areas, such as agriculture or retail, will be and what technical areas, such as risk management or product development, they need the most help with?

The DCA agreement stipulates that the banks are free to lend to any sector. However, out of $60 million, $12.1 million is reserved for loans to Low Cost Private Schools. After initial discussions with the financial institutions, it is clear that loans will go to a variety of sectors. Technical assistance would only be provided under this component of FMD Activity to financial institutions participating under the DCA activity and would aim to build capacity to lend to SMEs.

• Can you provide more information on if we are allowed to speak with someone at the

Mission or in the DCA office about these agreements that have already been signed?

The information provided with this Solicitation is ample for the purpose of proposals development. As mentioned on the Cover Page of this Solicitation, Offerors must not discuss this RFP or submit questions to any other USAID staff.

• What is the total guarantee availability of the DCA agreements overall and per bank?

The Loan Portfolio Guarantee will cover 50% of potential net principal loss on qualifying loans for qualifying borrowers. The total amount of loans that may be issued by banks under coverage is limited to $60 million. All banks have equal access.

32. Task 3 Expected Outcomes: on Page 19, Section C.4.3.3, there is mention of a desired outcome of an increase in SME lending at the DCA banks of $60 million.

• Is this an outcome that is expected to be reached under this project?

The Offeror will be expected to provide technical support as required to the four banks participating under the USAID/Pakistan DCA Activity, however the technical support may catalyze the provision of loans to Small and Medium Enterprises. Thus this outcome is the responsibility of financial institutions participating in the DCA activity.

• Do the DCA agreement periods coincide with this project (as the agreements are independently settled of this project and been in place since Sept. 30, 2014.)?

The DCA Activity is expected to continue for a 8 years. Out of these 8 years, FMD would continue for 5 years. However the support provided to financial institutions under Section C.4.3.3 is expected to be limited and to be provided as required.

33. In Section L.6.3.3 on page 81, the RFP states the following: “Proposals must include a complete list of all U.S. Governmental and/or privately funded contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc. received by the prime Offeror as well as on any proposed major subcontractor in the last five years…” Is it permissible to widen the scope of acceptable contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc. to include other donor-funded (e.g., World Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc.) projects?

Donor-funded projects within the past five years are permissible, so long as they involve “programs most relevant to the RFP” per section L.6.3.3. This section of the solicitation has been updated to reflect the change.

34. Please provide the DCA qualifying borrower criteria.

Qualifying borrowers will consist of non-sovereign Pakistani enterprises, entrepreneurs, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) under terms defined by the State Bank of Pakistan as SMEs (up to 250 employees and less than $4 million in annual revenue).

35. Please confirm whether deliverable C.4.1.2.h needs to be submitted within 90 days of award and before deliverable C.4.1.2.e), the report on consensus reached by DMWG.

Yes, we confirm that the statement is correct. Deliverable C.4.1.2.h should be informed by preliminary research and stakeholder interviews, and is intended to serve as an early framework for reform planning efforts. It will also provide early guidance to the deliberations of the

DMWG.

36. Page 77, Section L.6.1 Technical Approach: The heading for this section says that the technical approach can be a maximum of 20 pages. The subsequent paragraphs say the proposal page limit is 25 pages, 20 for the technical approach and five for the management approach and staffing. Could USAID please confirm that the total page limit for the proposal is 25 pages?

Yes, per L.6.1 the page limit for Technical Proposal is 25 Pages (20 Pages for Technical Approach + 5 Pages for Management & Staffing Plan).

37. Page 77, Section L.6.1 Technical Approach: Given the page constraints, may offerors submit additional annexes, for example one in which we further explain a methodology described only briefly in the proposal?

Per Section L.6.1 Technical Approach, the “Offeror must communicate their understanding, ability, methodology, and approach to implementation of the activity in a cogent and effective manner.” Thus, Offerors will be expected to explain their approach within the constraints and not rely upon additional technical approach annexes.

38. Given the fact that many of the project’s key counterparts are located in Karachi, does USAID anticipate that the project will be required to base staff in Karachi? Or, will all staff be based in Islamabad?

The location of staff will be left to the implementer; however USAID anticipates that the majority should be based in Islamabad, which is where two major government counterparts, the Ministry of Finance and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, are located.

39. Pages 20-21, Sections C.6.1, C.6.2, and C.6.3: USAID requires each key personnel candidate to have a master’s degree. Would USAID consider amending the minimum qualification requirements to accept 20 years of experience in lieu of a master’s degree?

40. Page 80, Section L.6.2.2 Management Plan: Would USAID consider allowing offerors to present an organizational chart and staffing plan (staff roles and responsibilities) as an annex to the technical proposal? Or would USAID consider increasing the page limit for the management plan section? The current limit of two pages does not give offerors adequate space to discuss the points outlined in Section L.6.2.2.

A summary in the main body and detail in an (NTE Five Pages) Annex would be acceptable.

41. Is billable, ‘off-site’ time possible for STTA Advisors?

42. On page 19, Key Personnel Section C6, there is mention of a “Resident Advisor(s) - Debt Capital Markets” with the ‘(s)’ alluding to a possibility of multiple Resident Advisors for Debt Capital Markets. We, in particular, are considering having a long-term Operations Manager and two Resident Advisors – Debt Capital Markets so that there is one who will focus almost entirely on Task 3 DCA SME lending. Is that permissible? If so, are we required to submit these individuals’ CV, Biodata, and Letter of Commitment?

The support provided to financial institutions under Section C.4.3.3 is expected to be limited.

USAID/Pakistan does not see the need for a long-term resource but rather focused short-term assistance provided as required to assist the successful implementation of the DCA activity.

43. Can the “Key Personnel” (including the Chief of Party position) be filled by non-US nationals?

Or, do they need to be US citizens? Are CCNs acceptable?

USAID has no prefetrence regarding employee nationality; it is up to the contractor to propose the right candidate that meets the requirements of the solicitation.

44. Will there be a TCN Waiver for allowances at the duty station for team members both long-term and STTA?

Under exceptional circumstances, on a case by case basis, USAID may consider approving a waiver in line with the applicable regulations.

45. Will USAID share CCN salary rates for local Pakistani companies? Any template or bracket structures will be helpful for costing.

Yes. Please see Attachment J. 11

END