Final_Amendment_1-SOL-486-13-000005.pdf

Part A. Specific changes to SOL-486-13-000005 as stated below:

1. In Box 12 of the RFP cover sheet, the following is inserted: “60 days”

2. In Section F.5, delete the following chart:

Labor Category Number of

Work Days Long-term Technical Assistance (LTTA) – US Nationals, Third Country Nationals/Cooperating Country Nationals

(TCN/CCN)

7,550

Short-term Technical Assistance (STTA) US Nationals, Third Country Nationals/Cooperating Country Nationals

(TCN/CCN)

2,227

Home Office Support 281 Total 10,058

And replace with the following:

Labor Category Number of

Work Days Long-term Technical Assistance (LTTA) – US Nationals, Third Country Nationals/Cooperating Country Nationals

(TCN/CCN)

TBD

Short-term Technical Assistance (STTA) US Nationals, Third Country Nationals/Cooperating Country Nationals

(TCN/CCN)

TBD

Home Office Support TBD Total 10,058

3. In Section L.9.1(b), Note 4, delete the following:

“The above chart defines the required level of effort to be delivered in the performance of Section C of this contract. Once the required level of effort has been provided, the contract will be completed; however, the Offeror can, with the written approval of the Contracting Officer, modify the contract by reallocating level of effort between labor categories within the general scope of the contract. No reallocation of level of effort can result in an increase in the total estimated cost of, or exceed the obligated amount in, the contract without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.”

And replace with the following:

“The above chart defines the required level of effort to be delivered in the performance of Section C of this contract. Once the required level of effort has been provided, the contract will be completed. The level of effort for key personnel of 260 work days per year is required. The level of effort for Long Term Technical Assistance, Short Term Technical Assistance and Home Office Support is illustrative and may be adjusted by Offerors among the three categories and distributed differently over the contract period.”

4. In Section H.2(a), delete the following:

“The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 000 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.”.

“The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 937 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.”

5. In Section L.9.1.b, delete the following chart:

6. In Section J, LIST OF ATTACHMENTS, revise to include the following ASEAN Single Window documents (see

Attachments (A) to (F) of this Amendment):

Attachment A - Annual Project Work Plan 2012 Attachment B - Quarterly Report (July-September 2012) Attachment C - ASW Pilot Project - DRAFT Final Report (not yet endorsed by ASEAN) Attachment D - General Presentation on ASW/NSWs - September 2012 Attachment E – ASW Symposium - Presentation on ASW Status - September 2012 Attachment F - Report, May 2008: ASEAN Single Window -- The Intersection of Law & Technology (provides background information on the Legal Framework Agreement)

7. In Section L.9.1, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL, Submission Instructions revise and replace “(c) Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors”, with the following:

Total

I. Operations Costs Salaries and Wages Fringe Benefits Travel and Transportation (includes regional participant travel)

Equipment and Supplies

Grants under Contracts (if applicable)

Other Direct Costs (includes workshops/seminars)

Indirect Costs Total Estimated Cost Fixed Fee TOTAL Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Total

I. Operations Costs Salaries and Wages Fringe Benefits Travel and Transportation (includes regional participant travel)

Equipment and Supplies

Grants under Contracts (if applicable)

Other Direct Costs (includes workshops/seminars)

II. Indirect Costs III. Total Estimated Cost IV. Fixed Fee TOTAL Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee

“(c) Part 3 - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors (See Section K and Section J of the RFP)

The Offeror and each proposed large sub-contractor (see Section L.8.2.5) must complete Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offeror", and sign and date on the last page in the space provided. The Offeror and each sub-contractor must include a Statement of Contingent Fees (SF 119) if required by Section K. In addition, the Offeror and each proposed large sub-contractor must submit a completed SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.”

Part B. Questions Received Pertaining to SOL-486-13-000005 and Corresponding USAID Answers:

Question 1. Can USAID please clarify if the offeror is allowed to adjust the LOE levels given in Sections F.5 and L.9.1, specifically for Home Office Support, in order to be consistent with the offeror’s best approach to Section C and in order to follow the offerors cost accounting structure with regards to home office support?

USAID Answer: Please see the changes made to the RFP in A.2 and A.3 above. LOE levels may be adjusted, but must conform to the total LOE noted in the SoW. LOE adjustments will be taken into consideration in evaluation of proposals.

Question 2 . Our SF 294 report submissions for the past five years constitute more than 15 MB and 500 pages. May we instead submit 10 of our most recent and relevant SF 294 reports?

USAID Answer: Yes

Question 3. Please confirm the end date of the current ASEAN Single Window task order.

USAID Answer: The current completion date of the ASEAN Single Window Task Order, AID-486-I-03-07-00008, is August 18, 2013

Question 4. To enable contractors to prepare for a seamless transition of activities from the current single window project to ACTI, would USAID/RDMA please distribute the following documents: the current annual work plan, the last available annual report, the most recent quarterly report, the final version of the ASEAN ASW Sustainability Study, the ASW Legal Framework Agreement, and the Asean Single Window scaled down pilot, which was anticipated to have ended in October 2012?

USAID Answer: Please see changes made to the RFP in A.6. USAID is making available the following ASEAN Single Window-related documents:

1. Attachment A - Annual Project Work Plan 2012

2. Attachment B - Quarterly Report (July-September 2012)

3. Attachment C - ASW Pilot Project - DRAFT Final Report (not yet endorsed by ASEAN)

4. Attachment D - General Presentation on ASW/NSWs - September 2012

5. Attachment E – ASW Symposium - Presentation on ASW Status - September 2012

6. Attachment F - Report, May 2008: ASEAN Single Window -- The Intersection of Law & Technology (provides background information on the Legal Framework Agreement)

USAID believes these documents provide sufficient information for the purposes of proposal preparation. USAID is not able to provide the current draft ASW Legal Framework Agreement or the ASW Sustainability Study at this time due to its current internal status within ASEAN.

Question 5. On page 14 of the RFP, the ASEAN Single Window Conceptual Model is provided, which is very helpful, however, the final ASEAN Design document and subsequent evaluation of the pilot phase are also vital for informing the ACTI approach to work-stream one. Could USAID kindly provide these documents?

USAID Answer: There is no “final ASEAN Design Document” as ASW is a work in progress. There is sufficient current information on the design and pilot, including diagrams, in the documents made available under Question 4.

Question 6. On page 20 of the RFP, USAID notes an illustrative input as helping SMEs access finance via support of the Development Credit Authority guarantees. Can USAID confirm which countries have active DCA loan guarantee programs, the objective of those programs, and period of validity of those programs? Does RDMA have an existing DCA in place for SME loan guarantees?

USAID Answer: Please visit the USAID DCA website (http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_growth_and_trade/development_credit/) to better understand the product.

DCAs are best paired with technical assistance programs. ACTI is a regional program and does not envision tapping into existing bilateral DCA facilities already in place to support other technical assistance programs. All DCAs for any ACTI interventions would be newly established DCAs.

Question 7. On page 30 and page 34 of the RFP, Draft Performance Management and Evaluation Plan, USAID notes the PMEP is due within 45 days following the contract signing, however, on page 29, USAID states the work plan is due 30 days after the contract signing and must be accompanied by a draft PMEP. Please clarify when USAID requires the submission of the draft PMEP.

USAID Answer: The correct submission timeline for the PMEP is 45 days after award. The Work Plan as required on Page 29 is due 30 days after award and must not be accompanied by the PMEP.

Question 8. Page 81 asks that that the offeror submit an abbreviated draft PMEP as part of the technical approach of the proposal. Can this draft PMEP be excluded from the 30 page limit?

USAID Answer: The PMEP may be appended to the proposal document with reference to the appropriate appendix in the body of the proposal.

Question 9. On Page 4, RFP Section B.2 Contract Type and Services (CPFF) states in part: “This is a cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF) term-type, cost reimbursement contract.” And on Page 74, RFP Section L.4 Type of Contract states:

“The Government contemplates a single award of a cost-reimbursement, term-type (level of effort), cost plus fixed fee contract resulting from this solicitation.”

Given that FAR 16.306(d)(2) states (emphasis added): “The term form describes the scope of work in general terms and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period. Under this form, if the performance is considered satisfactory by the Government, the fixed fee is payable at the expiration of the agreed-upon period, upon contractor statement that the level of effort specified in the contract has been expended in performing the contract work. Renewal for further periods of performance is a new acquisition that involves new cost and fee arrangements.” Would USAID consider either:

a. issuing a cost-reimbursement, completion-type, cost plus fixed fee contract as a result of this solicitation, or alternatively;

b. allowing contractors to invoice periodically for the proportion (ratio) of the total fixed fee that the LOE being currently invoiced bears to the total LOE required under the contract?

USAID Answer: USAID will apply FAR Clause 52.216-8 in Section I.1 of the RFP and will decide whether to include annual payments of the fixed fee based on the percentage of work completed at a later time.

Question 10. On Page 34, RFP Section F.4 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs lists the fourth deliverable as being the Annual Work Plan and states that it is: “Due 45 days before the end of the calendar year”. And on Page 87, RFP Section L.9.2 General Assumptions and Other Instructions, item number 2 states: “The period of performance is 60 months, from on/about May 2013 through on/about April 2018.” Given the anticipated project start in May 2013, the requirement to submit the Annual Work Plan 45 days before the end of the calendar year will result in submitting the annual work plan approximately 5.5 months prior to the start of the new project year. Please confirm that it is USAID’s intention that the due date for the Annual Work Plan is to be 45 days before the end of the calendar year, rather than 45 days before the end of the project year.

USAID Answer: ASEAN operates on a Calendar Year. As the project start date is intended in the middle of the Calendar Year, USAID would like to begin with an initial Work Plan through the remainder of the Calendar Year 2013 and then conform to the Calendar Year for subsequent Work Plans. For example, the 2014 Calendar Year Work Plan will be due 45 days before the end of 2013, and so forth in subsequent years.

Question 11. On Page 40, RFP Section H.2 incorporates AIDAR 752.225-70 Source, Origin, and Nationality Requirements (FEB 1997) and states in part:“The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 000 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.” Please confirm that in accordance with the revision to 22 CFR 228 Rules on Procurement of Commodities and Services Financed by USAID Federal Program Funds, as implemented via USAID’s AAPD 12-03 – Revision to 22 CFR 228 Source and Nationality Policy and via ADS Chapter 310 – Source and Nationality Requirements for Procurement of Commodities and Services Financed by USAID, that the correct AIDAR clause should be 752.225-70 Source and Nationality Requirements (FEB 2012), and that therefore the correct Geographic Code for the acquisition of goods and services under this contract is 937 as stated on Page

43 in RFP Section H.7 – Authorized Geographic Code, on Page 76 in RFP Sections L.7.(g) and (h), and on Page 92 in Attachment 1 – Identification of Principal Geographic Code Numbers.

USAID Answer: Please see the changes made to the RFP in A.4 above.

Question 12. On Page 64, Section J of the RFP – List of Attachments, includes SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities as Attachment 3. The instructions for preparation of the proposal in Section L do not make mention of submission of SF-LLL. Will USAID please confirm whether or not the SF-LLL is a required submission document, and if so, USAID Answer: See changes made to the RFP , number 7 above. The SF-LLL is a required document that should be submitted together with the rest of the required “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” in Section K of the RFP.

a. Is it to be included in the technical or cost proposal volume?

USAID Answer: The SF-LLL should be included in the Cost Proposal together with the “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” of Section K under Part 3.

b. Is it to be completed by only the Prime Contractor, the Prime Contractor and all proposed subcontractors, or the Prime Contractor and a subset of proposed Subcontractors?

USAID Answer: It must be completed by the Prime Offeror and any identified proposed subcontractors .

Question 13. On Page 72, RFP Section L.2(d) Offer expiration date states: “Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for the number of days specified on the solicitation cover sheet (unless a different period is proposed by the Offeror).” As Box 12 of the RFP cover sheet has not been completed, please confirm that Offerors are being required to provide a sixty (60) day validity period for their submitted proposals.

USAID Answer: Please see the change made to the RFP Cover Sheet in A.1 above.

Question 14. On Page 73, RFP Section L.2(f)(10) states: “A written award or acceptance of proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time specified in the proposal shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.” With regard to this RFP provision:

a. If the successful Offeror does not state a time period in its proposal, please confirm that the time period for this provision defaults to the sixty (60) days following the due date for receipt of proposals as per Box 12 of the RFP cover sheet (SF-33).

USAID Answer: Confirmed. Please also see the change made to the RFP Cover Sheet in A.1 above.

b. Please confirm that in accordance with FAR 15.504, a written award or acceptance of proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror will result in a binding contract without further action by either party only if the award document does not contain information that differs from the Offeror’s signed proposal, as amended by the Offeror’s written correspondence.

USAID Answer: Confirmed.

Question 15. On Page 75, RFP Sections L.7.1(a)(i) and (ii) state in part: “The written technical and cost proposals must be accompanied by a CD-ROM with electronic copies of both proposals.” Please confirm that USAID is requiring Offerors to include two CD-ROMs, one with only an electronic copy of the technical proposal to be included with the written technical proposal, and a second CD-ROM with only an electronic copy of the cost proposal to be included with the written cost proposal.

USAID Answer: Confirmed.

Question 16. On Page 76, RFP Section L.7.1(j) states: “In case of any disagreements or discrepancies between the terms and conditions of this RFP and the FAR, the RFP shall prevail.” Please confirm that this provision is correct as written, i.e., that the RFP shall prevail rather than the FAR.

USAID Answer: Confirmed.

Question 17. For charts and graphs, can an offeror use a smaller font, such as Arial Narrow, size 9, for text included in the charts and graphs?

USAID Answer: Text included in graphs and charts is not subject to the font requirement identified in Section L.8.1(d) of the RFP. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that all text is legible.

Question 18. On page 31 C.6, USAID notes that “this activity may include a grants component and authorizes grants under contract (GUCs) over the life of the project of up to $1,000,000.” Can USAID confirm that all offerors must have a $1,000,000 plug for grants included in its cost proposal?

USAID Answer: There is no requirement for GUCs or required plug figure. USAID is noting a $1,000,000 ceiling for GUCs over the life of the project. Offerors are asked to consider utilization of GUCs as appropriate for its overall technical approach.

Any proposal that excludes the use of GUCs would benefit from an explanation as to why the Offeror determined GUCs are not appropriate for its technical approach.

Question 19. On Page 84, RFP Section L.9.(b)(i) presents a LOE chart and states in part: “The above chart defines the required level of effort to be delivered in the performance of Section C of this contract. One the required level of effort has been provided, the contract will be completed; however, the Offeror can, with the written approval of the Contracting Officer, modify the contract by reallocating level of effort between labor categories within the general scope of the contract. No reallocation of level of effort can result in an increase in the total estimated cost of, or exceed the obligated amount in, the contract without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.”

With respect to this RFP provision:

a. Will USAID explain the rationale behind the number of professional technical level of effort work days allocated to each category (LTTA, STTA, and Home Office)?

USAID Answer: The LOE days allocated by category represent USAID’s reasonable estimation of the mix of LTTA, STTA and Home Office support need to achieve the desired outputs.

b. Will USAID explain how the 7,550 work days for LTTA was derived as this number does not work out to an even number of staff when using a 260-day work year over the five year life of the activity?

USAID Answer: The 7,550 days estimates that some of the LTTA may not begin immediately upon contract award, but be hired during initial mobilization and start-up period.

c. Is it a strict requirement that all Offerors propose costs based on a total of exactly 10,058 work days of professional technical assistance labor allocated between LTTA, STTA and Home Office as presented in the LOE table?

USAID Answer: As noted, LOE allocations among categories may be adjusted in line with the Offerors approach to Section C, but within the total maximum days as indicated in the RFP and with explanations for adjustments.

Question 20. On Page 84, RFP Section L.9.(b)(i), Note 3 states: For purposes of Offerors’ calculating the required level of effort in the cost proposal, a proposed professional that will work full time on the Activity – such as key personnel – is equal to 260 work days per year. Twenty-two work days per month must be used by Offerors in calculating the level of effort for any proposed professional that is proposed to work less than full time.”

a. A standard work year is 260 days. However, Offerors that have an indirect cost rate that includes paid absences must present their budget using a reduced LOE level for full time personnel that is equivalent to 260 days less the number of paid absences included in the Offeror’s indirect cost rate. To do otherwise would be double counting the cost of the paid absences. Is USAID asking Offerors to reconcile the LOE costed directly in our budgets with the total LOE work days included in the table to ensure that we account for the exact number of work days in the table?

USAID Answer: The requirement stated in Section L.9.(b)(i) is intended to ensure that every Offeror proposes the same overall level of effort so that USAID may evaluate the proposals on an equal basis. Offeror’s should provide a budget that is consistent with their accounting policies but must provide a clear explanation in the budget narrative of how their cost proposal and proposed level of effort is consistent with the requirement stated in Section L.9.(b)(i). USAID will discuss with Offerors the potential of revising their level of effort to be consistent with their accounting practices after USAID completes its evaluation.

b. Are the LOE work days included in the table intended to represent full work years, i.e., 260 day work years, inclusive of paid absences?

USAID Answer: Please see the answer directly above.

Question 21. In the first paragraph of section M.2.2.2 on page 80 USAID states that “the offeror must provide brief summaries of the job descriptions and qualifications of other full time technical professional staff, and short term advisors”. In section M.2.2.2 on page 81 USAID states that “the Offeror must submit CVs for notional non-key personnel “. Qualifications for these proposed classes of non-key personnel would seem to be included in both CVs and these brief summaries. Can USAID clarify whether or not the offeror must provide both CVs and brief summaries of the job descriptions and qualifications for all other full time professional staff both technical and non-technical?

USAID Answer: The offeror is expected to provide both CVs and brief summaries of the job descriptions and qualifications for all other full time professional staff both technical and non-technical. A thorough proposal might also benefit from similar information for anticipated STTA staffing.

Question 22. On Page 85, RFP Section L.9(b)ii) includes a table listing the standard cost elements to be included in the cost submission when applicable. This table presents all of the cost elements (Salaries and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Travel and Transportation, etc.) as being listed under the heading “I. Operations Costs.” Additionally, on Page 87, RFP Section L.9.2, Item No. 4 states:

“4. The cost proposal must include the following Operations Costs distinction:

a. STTA in support of Offeror operations (e.g. staff training, facilitation of strategy sessions, admin/finance/management, etc.) that is neither part of implementation activity nor directed toward a program beneficiary should be reflected as part of the “Operations Costs” section of the budget summary. The COR must concur on trips and scopes of work for these STTA.

b. Program STTA (local and expatriate) e.g., a facilitator for a beneficiaries’ conference, technical assistance to local governments or NGOs, a trainer for a training in support of an activity, engineer, should be reflected in the “Operation Costs” section of the budget summary.”

With regard to these RFP requirements:

a. Will USAID provide a template of the desired budget summary?

b. As all cost elements were listed under the heading “Operations Costs” in the table on Page 85, will USAID please advise what other major cost category(s) it expects to see on the Budget Summary?

USAID Answer: In response to questions a and b, the budget format included in the RFP is illustrative and is intended to provide the standard cost elements that must be included as applicable. Other line items may be included at the Offeror’s discretion.

c. For clarification purposes, is USAID defining “Operations Costs” as those costs that are cross-cutting, i.e., not directly attributable to a specific Work-Stream Requirement?

USAID Answer: Please see the change made to the RFP in A.5 above. “Operation Costs” should include all direct costs.

d. Can USAID clarify whether the STTA in support of Offeror operations is additional to the LOE total provided on page 35 of the RFP?

USAID Answer: STTA in support of Offeror operations is not additional to the LOE total provided. In addition, as stated in L.9.1, Note 2, of the RFP “The required level of effort does not include non-professional support staff (e.g., office managers, administrative assistants, or drivers).”

Question 23. Can USAID confirm that the only costs to be included in the “Operations Costs” line of the summary table are for STTA (operations and program STTA as described in L.9.2.4 a. and b. on page 87) and no other costs?

USAID Answer: Please see the change made to the RFP in A.5 above. “Operation Costs” should include all direct costs.

‐ End of Amendment No. 1 -

Attachment A – Annual Project Work Plan 2012

ASEAN Single Window Task Order Draft Annual Work Plan 2012 – Feb. 2013

COMPILED FOR

USAID/RDM/Asia

UNDER CONTRACT

486-1-00-07-0008-00 Task Order 03

March 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annual Work Plan 2012-Feb. 2013 for ADVANCE ASEAN Single Window 1

Executive Summary 1

ASW Background 3

Why an ASW 3

Mandate for ASW 3

USAID ASW Project 4

Progress in “Clearance Times” in ASEAN 4

Review of Key ASW Project Activities in 2011 6

Year V: January 2012 – February 2013 9

1. Technical Implementation Activity stream 9

Activity 1.1: ASW Pilot Project 9

Activity 1.2: ASW Sustainability Study 10

Activity 1.3: Cross-Border Business Process Analysis 10

2. Legal Implementation Activity Stream 11

Activity 2.1: Support for Legal Framework Agreement 11

Activity 2.2: Legal Gap Analysis for NSW and ASW Related Laws and

Regulations 11

3. National Single Window Activity Stream 12

Activity 3.1: NSW Support 12

Activity 3.2: Support to Laos NSW Development 13

4. Private Sector Outreach & Public Awareness Activity Stream 13

Past Activities 13

Objectives of Until End of Project 14

Core Messages 15

Activities 15

Activity 4.1: Produce/Support External Communications (aimed at ASEAN private sector, AMS officials, and the U.S. and ASEAN public) 15

4.2: Produce/Support Internal Communications (aimed at USG audiences mainly) 16

Appendix A: Status of 2011 Project Activities

Appendix B: ASW Project 2012-Feb. 2013 Workplan Indicative Timeline

ANNUAL WORK PLAN 2012-FEB. 2013 FOR

ADVANCE ASEAN SINGLE WINDOW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are six essential ASEAN priorities for ASW that the project will look to support in

2012 and until its completion (expected by February 18, 2013).

First element is to ensure successful implementation of the ASW Pilot Project technical architecture (scaled-down Component 2). The activity, which kicked off November 1, 2011 is on schedule and several ASEAN Member States (AMS) are on course for early testing of the architecture (May to June 2012 instead of September to October 2012). The project, which will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the ASW Pilot Project after completion of this activity, will also work with the ASEAN Secretariat (ASEC), USAID/RDMA, and other potential donors to try to launch scale-up Pilot implementation before end of project.

A second critical element is the initiation and completion of an ASW Sustainability

Study. The project submitted an inception report for this activity in January 2012. It includes developing a value proposition for ASW; conducting an ASW impact study from a traders’ perspective; developing plans for ASW governance, location, and staffing;

proposing a business model for ASW; and laying out 10-year financial projections.

A third element is the implementation and completion of a cross-border Business

Process Analysis activity. Critically important, this activity will identify, analyze, and prioritize cross-border business processes and data that will be exchanged using the ASW architecture other than the ASEAN Customs Declaration Document and ATIGA Form D.

A fourth element is the implementation of the ASW private sector consultations work program that was finally agreed by AMS. This will involve several elements, including the conduct of an ASW symposium to brainstorm with senior AMS officials and private sector about the end-state vision for ASW, development of an ASW web portal, preparation of ASW/NSW case studies and promotional material, etc.

A fifth element is to complete drafting of the ASW Legal Framework Agreement (LFA).

Little progress was achieved in LFA drafting in 2011 as AMS did not provide substantial input to the draft text prepared by the project. However, one AMS is due to submit a revised draft LFA at the first ASW Legal Working Group meeting of the year and it is expected that a full LFA draft will be ready by the end of the year.

Finally, a sixth element will be the launch of a trade security activity with funding from the U.S. State Department’s Export Control and Border Related Security (EXBS) program. This activity will focus on helping AMS develop trade security policies and systems, including in risk management and targeting, that will allow them to make effective use of electronic data processed and exchanged in National Single Windows

(NSWs) and ASW. This activity will have its own workplan and budget and is not detailed further in this document.

Apart from the trade security activity, the above tasks were derived from the ASW 2012

Work Plan developed and agreed by AMS in February 2012, which were, in turn, extracted from the ASW Technical and Legal Working Group five-year 2011-2015 workplans (all developed with project support).

This workplan includes ASW background, a review of key project activities in 2011, and proposed activities for 2012 until project completion. Attached to this workplan are a status update on project activities based on the 2011 workplan (Appendix A), an anticipated timeline for project activities this year and until project completion (Appendix

B), and an estimated budget summary (Appendix C).

Key Activities and Anticipated Accomplishments for 2012 and Until Project End

ASW Pilot Project Component 2 (scaled down) completed with successful testing of ATIGA Form D and ACDD testing exchange among participating AMS

Possible/partial launch of the scaled-up ASW Pilot Project Component 2 depending on funding availability

ASW Sustainability Study successfully completed that provides a clear picture of how the ASW architecture will be managed and sustained

ASW cross-border Business Process Analysis successfully completed that identifies, analyzes, and prioritizes cross-border business processes and data to be exchanged in the ASW architecture

ASW Symposium successfully conducted that lays out recommendations from senior AMS officials and private sector on ASW end-state

ASW web portal successfully launched and maintained, along with other outreach activities (e.g. case studies, promotional material, etc.)

ASW draft Legal Framework Agreement substantially completed

Legal Gap Analysis for implementing ASW in two additional AMS budget permitting

Development and completion of Laos NSW Roadmap

ASW BACKGROUND

Why an ASW

Trade involves the submission, processing, and exchange of a substantial number of documents of commercial and regulatory nature, such as customs declaration forms, certificates of origin, phytosanitary and veterinary certificates, commercial documents and freight papers, etc. Uncertainty and unpredictability of outcomes of document processing for cargo clearance are costly to businesses and industries, detracting from international competitiveness. Reducing or limiting these trade costs can help reduce the cost of imports, enhancing domestic competition to the benefit of consumers, while also contributing to lowering the cost of exports, improving price competitiveness and stimulating export growth. This is the objective of the ASEAN Single Window (ASW).

Mandate for ASW

The ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint, which aims to create a single market and production base, includes the creation of the ASW as a major initiative to facilitate free flow of goods. Section A1 of the Blueprint stipulates that implementation of measures that simplify, harmonize and standardize trade and customs processes, procedures and the application of information and communications technology (ICT) would be essential for the creation of an ASW. The ASW is an environment where ten National Single Windows

(NSWs) of individual ASEAN Member States (AMS) operate and integrate. A NSW enables a single submission of data and information, a single and synchronous processing of data and information, and a single decision-making for customs clearance and release of cargo. By expediting customs clearance and reducing transaction time and costs, the

ASW enhances trade efficiency and competitiveness.

The AEC Blueprint requires operationalization of the NSWs by the ASEAN-6 (Brunei

Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) by 2008 and operationalization of NSWs by Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (CLMV) by 2012.

Moreover, it requires standardization of data elements based on the World Customs

Organization (WCO) Data Model, United Nations Trade Data Elements Directory

(UNTDED), and other international standards related to operations of the ASW; and acceleration of the introduction of ICT for electronic processing and exchange of information.

Aside from Singapore, which has a world-class single window system in place, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand appear to be at fairly advanced stages of NSW implementation. Vietnam kicked off its NSW work in 2009, has an institutional process in place, and is receiving donor funding for the launch of its NSW, at least partially, in 2012.

With ASW Project support Laos kicked off its NSW development efforts in 2011 and seems committed to having an NSW in place as soon as possible. Cambodia is expected to complete its e-Customs development using ASYCUDA in 2012 but has not yet fully embarked in an NSW process.

Two legal instruments provide the foundation for the ASW. The Agreement to establish and implement the ASEAN Single Window (ASW Agreement) was signed on December

8, 2005 by ASEAN Economics Ministers. The Protocol to establish and implement the

ASEAN Single Window (ASW Protocol) was signed on December 20, 2006 by ASEAN

Finance Ministers. These documents formalize the strong commitments of ASEAN’s ten

Member States to embark on this challenging initiative to facilitate trade facilitation at both the regional and national levels.

USAID ASW Project

In early 2008, USAID announced two new 5-year regional Task Orders under the ASEAN

Development Vision to Advance National Cooperation and Economic Integration

(ADVANCE) Program, which has been described as “the cornerstone of the US

Government’s regional assistance program to ASEAN.” One of these, the ADVANCE

ASW Task Order, supports the development and implementation of the ASW. Moreover, assistance for implementation of the ASW is included in the work program under the

ASEAN-US Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement. The ADVANCE ASW

Project provides technical assistance and training at the regional ASEAN level and at the national level in select ASEAN Member States.

Progress in “Clearance Times” in ASEAN

Time-to-trade in ASEAN varies considerably between Singapore and the rest of the

Member States. The latest World Bank Doing Business report (2012) shows that while

Singapore’s time-to-export and time-to-import are five and four days, respectively, those indicators average about 20 days each for ASEAN.1 The table below shows time-to-trade and cost-to-trade for all AMS except Burma.

1 See http://www.doingbusiness.org/MethodologySurveys/TradingAcrossBorders.aspx for more information on the methodology used to derive the numbers.

Table: World Bank Doing Business Survey Time-to-Trade Indicators for ASEAN2

AMS Time for Export (in days) Cost to Export (US$ per container) Time for Import (in days) Cost to Import (US$ per container)

2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012 2006 2009 2012

Brunei na 28 19 na 630 680 na 19 15 na 798 745

Cambodia 43 22 22 736 732 732 55 30 26 816 872 872

Indonesia 25 21 17 546 704 644 30 27 27 675 660 660

Laos 66 50 44 1,420 1,860 1,880 78 50 46 1,690 2,040 2,035

Malaysia 18 18 17 432 450 450 14 14 14 385 450 435

Philippines 17 16 15 800 816 630 18 16 14 800 819 730

Singapore 5 5 5 416 456 456 3 3 4 367 439 439

Thailand 24 14 14 848 625 625 22 13 13 1,042 795 750

Vietnam 24 22 22 669 756 580 23 21 21 881 940 670 Average -

ASEAN 27 22 20 762 804 769 30 22 21 850 883 835

Average -

OECD 12 11 10 890 1,024 1,032 12 11 11 974 1,086 1,085

Note: Data for Burma not available.

2 Information compiled by ASW Project from the World Bank’s Doing Business Survey.

REVIEW OF KEY ASW PROJECT ACTIVITIES IN 2011

Following is a review of key project activities and achievements in 2011, against expected key achievements (from the 2011 workplan), and remaining challenges:

ASW Pilot Project Component 1 finalized and Component 2 launched

― ASW Pilot Project Component 1 (technical design architecture) was successfully completed and all deliverables endorsed.

― Project successfully argued for a scaled-down architecture implementation

(Component 2) to overcome lack of funding for a full-scale Pilot, drafted

Terms of Reference (TOR) in collaboration with AMS, conducted an open procurement for the activity, and awarded the contract.

― Implementation is proceeding on an accelerated basis, which might open the possibility of scaling up the Pilot, perhaps partially, before project completion (depending on funding constraints).

ACDD application developed and being tested by AMS

― Application was successfully developed as it is able to generate the XML schema that enables the exchange of ACDD data electronically between

AMS. Successful testing of the exchange, however, will now depend on Pilot implementation.

― To help ensure adoption and use of the application among AMS the project offered to provide additional training and capacity building in its use. No requests have been made so far.

Full draft of ASW Legal Framework Agreement being considered by AMS

― Project updated a draft LFA that it had already drafted based on Pilot technical architecture design findings.

― AMS provided few comments thus far on the draft LFA, though one AMS will provide a revised draft by the first ASW Legal Working Group (LWG) meeting of the year.

― To spur more intensive work on the LFA the project held a legal capacity building workshop on the margins of an LWG meeting, which helped provide both explanations to complex legal issues as well as context through the use of concrete examples of legal issues involved in exchanging a phytosanitary certificate through the ASW.

Legal Gap Analysis for implementing ASW in two AMS and completion of

Vietnam NSW legal gap analysis

― The Vietnam National Single Window (NSW) legal gap analysis was successfully completed and will provide a model for such analyses in the region (and probably the world). The final report was presented to public and private sector stakeholders.

― The Lao NSW legal gap analysis was successfully completed and presented to public and private sector stakeholders.

― Philippines requested support to conduct a similar analysis. However, with leadership change at the Philippines Bureau of Customs, the activity will only take place in 2012.

― Other AMS have also said they were considering making support requests for legal gap analyses.

Support provided to Laos in launching its NSW

― Project conducted a Lao NSW awareness workshop, an ATIGA Form D software application training, and a legal gap analysis (see above) in support of Laos’s NSW launch.

― Project also conducted a fact-finding mission to begin developing a Lao NSW roadmap and produced a report on mission findings. The roadmap presentation will be held in early 2012.

Private sector consultation work program approved and launched; expectations of private sector aligned with ASEAN plans and activities for ASW

― The ASW private sector consultation work program, drafted by the project in collaboration with ASEC, was approved in the fourth quarter 2011 after several discussions throughout the year.

― Project outlined several activities to begin implementing the work program, including organizing an ASW symposium (also called ASW “Innovation”

Workshop), sending ASW/NSW email news updates to ASEAN trade associations, developing case studies, and outlining ASW/NSW content for the ASW web portal.

Improved capacity in business process analysis and data harmonization at both regional and national level

― Project conducted a Business Process Analysis (BPA) awareness workshop on the margins of an ASW Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting. The workshop served to launch the drafting of a TOR for cross-border BPA, which will allow AMS to identify, analyze, and prioritize data other than

ACDD and ATIGA Form D that will be exchanged in the ASW architecture.

It also served to start a discussion with AMS about the need for an ASW

“Innovation” Workshop. Both of those activities are now planned for this year.

― No requests were made in 2011 for national-level BPA or data harmonization workshops. One request is being prepared, however, for 2012, which will be considered in this workplan.

Other key achievements from 2011

― Five-year TWG and LWG workplans, drafted by the project, were approved by AMS.

― ASW sustainability study TOR, also drafted by the project, was approved by

AMS.

― Three NSW fact-finding missions were conducted in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia to be updated on those countries’ NSW progress and determine any possible areas of technical assistance.

YEAR V: JANUARY 2012 – FEBRUARY 2013

1. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY STREAM

Activity 1.1: ASW Pilot Project

The objective of the ASW Pilot Project is to design, test, and evaluate a technical architecture for the exchange of data among AMS. Testing will involve the exchange of

ATIGA Form-D and ACDD among participating AMS, which are Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. When complete, the regional architecture will contribute to facilitating trade and improving compliance in

ASEAN.

The ASW Pilot Project consists of the following components:

Component 1: Conduct a consultancy to study and design the most feasible network architecture to conduct the ASW Pilot Project using the federated approach;

Component 2: Set up the network infrastructure agreed by AMS to implement the ASW Pilot Project; and

Component 3: Conduct the evaluation of the ASW Pilot Project.

Following completion of Component 1 and endorsement of the ASW technical architecture design, AMS, with project support, have launched the scaled-down implementation of Component 2. That activity is expected to be complete by October

2012, though several AMS are likely to have finished testing the exchange of ACDD and

ATIGA Form D data earlier. Following activity completion the project will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the Pilot to identify any adjustments that need to be made. The evaluation may be conducted earlier if a substantial number of participating AMS complete testing based on the accelerated implementation schedule. In addition, and depending on funding availability, the project will explore with AMS and ASEC the possibility of scaling-up the Pilot (to full Component 1 specifications) before scheduled

ASW Project completion.

Deliverable 1: Successful completion of scaled-down Component 2, including testing of data exchange between participating AMS.

Deliverable 2: Preliminary evaluation of the Pilot (i.e. evaluation of scaled-down

Component 2).

Deliverable 3: If sufficient funding can be secured, launch at least partial implementation of the Pilot scale-up.

Key Development Outcome: ASW Pilot Project designed, tested, and evaluated (at least for the scaled-down version), which sets the framework for the cross-border exchange of cargo clearance data electronically in ASEAN.

Activity 1.2: ASW Sustainability Study

Given lack of funds for full ASW Pilot implementation, the ASW Steering Committee requested that the project support an ASW sustainability study to outline recommendations for how future phases of ASW may be funded and sustained. The study will explore the ASW value proposition, potential impact on traders, governance and staffing, business model, and financial projections.

Deliverable 1: Completion of all deliverables under this activity, including inception report and other reports covering value proposition, impact study, governance structure, regional operations and staffing, business model, financial projections, and ASW future outlook, and presentations of deliverables at TWG and/or ASW Steering Committee

(ASWSC) meetings.

Deliverable 2: Conduct private sector consultations as part of this activity, including roundtables with ASEAN trade associations to discuss the ASW value propositions, and possibly a survey of traders as part of the impact study.

Key Development Outcome: Roadmap for ASW architecture development, management, and sustainability is laid out and agreed by AMS.

Activity 1.3: Cross-Border Business Process Analysis

While current ASW Pilot Project efforts focus on laying out the ASW pilot architecture and testing it in the exchange of ATIGA Form D and ACDD, AMS have agreed to begin identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing other cross-border business processes and data that will be used and exchanged in the ASW architecture. This activity will combine BPA, data harmonization, and capacity building at the regional and national levels.

Deliverable 1: Completion of all deliverables under this activity including inception report and reports related to identification of all business processes in cargo clearance and trade that involve cross-border exchanges, diagram of each business process identified showing the step-by-step data and information/documentation flow, narrative detailing each step in the business processes identified and listing data and information/documentation flow, compiling all data elements from the identified business processes and respective information/documentation and mapping them to the WCO Data Model (WCO DM) and

ASEAN Data Model (ADM), and recommending prioritization of cross-border business processes for incorporation into the ASW.

Deliverable 2: Regional BPA awareness and information flow workshop conducted.

Deliverable 3: National-level technical assistance activities to support BPA, data mapping and data harmonization conducted.

Deliverable 4: Where needed, help align the ADM with the latest version of the WCO DM, including supporting visits by relevant WCO experts and organizing a regional workshop on ADM-WCO Data Model alignment.

Key Development Outcome: Clear path forward on how the ASW architecture will be used, i.e. which data will be exchanged, to expedite clearance of goods in the region.

2. LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY STREAM

Activity 2.1: Support for Legal Framework Agreement

The LFA represents a comprehensive legal framework that will enable single window legal interoperability within ASEAN as well as with trading partners outside the ASEAN region. ASEAN Member States were expected to have started work in earnest on the ASW

LFA in 2010 but work only started late in 2011. The MOU, which provides the basic legal framework for the ASW Pilot Project, was signed by all AMS Customs Directors General or their deputies in mid-2011. In late 2011 one AMS agreed to provide a revised draft LFA at the first LWG meeting of 2012. The project, which developed an early draft of the LFA, will continue supporting the LFA development process through participation of our Legal

Advisor in LWG meetings, provision of legal drafting support, preparation of discussion papers and updates on international legal developments in SW, and, as needed, carrying out of preparatory work ahead of LWG meetings.

Deliverable 1: Technical assistance provided to the ASW LWG in drafting the LFA, including preparation of discussion papers, issue briefs, and updates on international legal developments; complete draft of LFA being considered by AMS by end of project.

Key Development Outcome: AMS making substantial progress in drafting and agreeing to the ASW Legal Framework Agreement, which will ensure SW legal interoperability within ASEAN and between AMS and other trading partners. The LFA, when complete, will also serve as a starting point for any other regional single window initiative in the world.

Activity 2.2: Legal Gap Analysis for NSW and ASW Related Laws and Regulations

National-level legal gap analyses are critical to the ASW as they help AMS identify legal gaps in domestic law that would create barriers (1) to the full operation of a Member

State’s NSW; (2) to the cross-border legal interoperability between NSWs and the ASW;

and (3) to the legal interoperability of the NSW and non-governmental entities that will participate in the NSWs. Key single window-related legal issues that legal gap analyses address include electronic signatures, authentication, cross-border mutual recognition, information security, confidentiality of trade data, liability, data integrity, jurisdiction, data retention and electronic archiving, and dispute resolution.

The project will conduct a legal gap analysis with the Philippines and expects to conduct at least one additional analysis before project completion (depending on funding availability).

Deliverable 1: Philippines legal gap analysis carried out and presented, as appropriate, to stakeholders.

Deliverable 2: One additional legal gap analysis carried out and presented, as appropriate and if funding allows, to stakeholders.

Key Development Outcome: Vietnam, Philippines, and Laos are aware of legal gaps to electronic exchange of cross-border transaction data and have prioritized how they will address those issues.

3. NATIONAL SINGLE…