SOL-72012124R00020 Amendment 02__112324.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

Two (2)

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE

USAID/Ukraine Regional Contracts Office Department of State 5850 Kyiv Place Washington, DC 20521-5850

See Block 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SOL-72012124R00020

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 10/31/2024

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE: FACILITY CODE: 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43,103 (b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is:

1. To incorporate answers to the questions received regarding the Solicitation as detailed in Attachment 1- Questions and Answers - STRONG UA (Amendment 02) of this amendment; and,

2. To revise the Solicitation as shown in Attachment 2 - Tracked Changes_Updated RFP_SOL-72012124R00020_STRONG-UA_Amendment-02 and Attachment 3 - Clean Copy (Highlighted) Updated RFP_SOL-72012124R00020_STRONG-UA_Amendment-02 of this amendment.

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Brian R. Ellis

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1 290

Attachment 1

Questions and Answers - STRONG UA (Amendment 02)

General Questions:

1. In line with ADS 636 and the conditions under which advances may be extended to for profit organizations, would USAID consider issuing a letter of credit to the Contractor to accommodate the large amount of working capital that will be required to perform this contract and issue the quantity of grants in the time frame specified in the RFP? Alternatively, would USAID consider allowing the Contractor to submit invoices twice per month?

USAID Answer: The method of payment shall be finalized upon contract award.

2. Standard Form (SF) 33: Page 107, Section L.8 (a) Part 1 of the RFP states, “Offerors must make their proposals valid for at least 180 days.” However, Box 12 of the SF-33 Form states “120 calendar days”. Could USAID/Ukraine please confirm that Offerors must make their proposals valid for at least 180 days and not 120 days?

USAID Answer: Offerors must make their proposals valid for at least 180 days. Correction has been made in Standard Form (SF) 33, Box 12, replacing “120 days” with “180 days”.

3. The Cover Page states that this Activity will have a base period of performance of two years plus three one-year option periods, with an estimate of 55,255 person days LOE of professional technical staff for the full five-year period. Could USAID provide guidance on expected LOE distribution across years?

USAID Answer: The offeror is responsible for deciding how to allocate the level of effort based on its proposed strategy or technical approach.

Under Section B:

1. Page 9, Section B.4 of the RFP indicates a $80,000,0000 ceiling amount “for subawards that include subcontracts and grants under contracts (GUCs).”

a) Could USAID/Ukraine please clarify if the $80,000,000 plug figure includes only GUCs and local subcontracts (i.e., GUCs and local/regional subcontracts) and not international subcontractors?

USAID Answer: The $80,000,000 plugged amount for subcontracts and GUCs is intended to support mobilizing financing and other project targets/objectives, and is not limited to local subcontracts.

b) Related, does this plug figure include subcontractors that are assisting the Prime Offeror with implementation, or only the firms which the Offeror is supporting as beneficiaries (e.g., through co-investments)?

USAID Answer: The purpose and objective of the $80,000,000 plugged amount is for it to be used by the implementing partner to accomplish the STRONG-UA targets/objectives and is envisaged to be implemented largely through subcontractors and grantees.

2. Per RFP Section B.4, the total subcontracts and grants under contract over the base and option years should equal $80 million. Additionally, Section L.8 states that: “There is a plug figure of $80,000,000 provided in the budget for subcontracts and grants under contracts (GUCs) that are authorized in this Activity.” Could USAID please clarify whether subcontracts that are supporting core activities under STRONG-UA may be budgeted outside of the $80 million plug?

USAID Answer: Please see USAID Answer Section B.1(b) and USAID Answer Section C.7 below.

Under Section C:

1. Regarding the geographic scope. Is the activity expected to operate nationwide in Ukraine or focus on specific regions?

USAID Answer: The activity is expected to operate nationwide in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.

2. Target sectors. While the RFP takes a sector-agnostic approach, are there any priority industries or sectors that USAID would like to see emphasized in the proposal? These questions are important, as for example risk mitigation tactics and instruments can be a bit different from sector to sector.

USAID Answer: No, there are no priority industries or sectors that need to be emphasized in the technical proposal. The overarching objective of STRONG UA is to achieve a significant increase in employment and revenues in partner SMEs, resulting in economic growth and increased tax revenues and does not have priority industries or sectors. However, during the course of implementation, the Contractor may recommend or the Mission may designate specific industries, businesses or sectors of particular importance through the workplanning and pause and reflect sessions. Please see USAID Answers Section C.4.

3. On capital mobilization. What types of financial institutions should be targeted for SME funding (e.g. local banks, international banks, microfinance institutions) Are there any preferences or restrictions on the financial instruments to be used?

USAID Answer: USAID has not targeted specific financial institutions and there are no preferences on the financial instruments to be used. Offerors are expected to use financial instruments they deem best suited to meet objectives and targets.

4. For new market linkages. Are there specific export markets or sectors that should be prioritized? What level of support is expected in helping SMEs meet international standards and certifications?

USAID Answer: USAID has not identified specific export markets or sectors and offerors should propose the level of support they feel will meet the STRONG UA targets/objectives. Please see USAID Answer Section C.2 above.

5. On innovation and competitiveness. What types of innovation support are envisioned (e.g.

technology adoption, R&D, process improvements)? Are there target metrics for improving SME competitiveness?

USAID Answer: USAID envisions support that includes, but is not limited to, increased sales, improved margins, the adoption of labor-saving technologies and innovations, reductions in transaction costs associated with business operations, and new financing. USAID has no preference for innovation and competitiveness support other than that the positive impact of such support be demonstrable. There are no exact target metrics for improving SME competitiveness, but offerors are welcome to submit such metrics.

6. Regarding business reforms. Which specific regulatory areas should be prioritized for reform efforts? What level of engagement is expected with government stakeholders?

USAID Answer: Offerors should determine needed regulatory reforms as well as the level of engagement needed with government stakeholders.

7. Can USAID provide more guidance on the expected use and management of the $80 million ceiling for subcontracts and grants under contract? Are there any restrictions or preferences for how these funds should be utilized?

USAID Answer: Subcontracts and grants under contract are intended to be used by the Contractor to facilitate the accomplishment of the targets noted in Section C of the RFP and there are no restrictions for how the funds will be used. The Mission’s preference is that subcontracts and grants under contracts be issued on a “pay-for-results” basis and structure.

Please also see USAID Answers Section B.1 and Section B.2 above.

8. Section C.5.4 (p20) states “The Contractor is expected to facilitate new venture investment funds (at least four) over the life of the award, with an estimated amount of finance mobilized on average $80M and with support of $8M in catalytic funding.” We interpret this to mean that the Contractor is supposed to facilitate four venture capital funds at $20M each, with each fund leveraging $2M in catalytic funding. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct.

USAID Answer: Targets are indicative, but it is envisaged that the Contractor will facilitate at least four venture funds with total assets of $80M through $8M in catalytic funding.

9. According to Section C.5.2 (page 19), USAID anticipates STRONG-UA to issue 100 co-investment grants to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Year 1 and another 100 in Year 2 (for a cumulative total of 200). However, the anticipated five-year target is 5,000 grants to SMEs. Based on established grant team staffing levels, grant processes, and the overall grants budget, a target of 500 grants over five years (with a continued average of 100 grants per year) would be more achievable, and it would still be ambitious over the life of the activity. Could USAID please confirm that this total target should be 500 rather than 5,000?

USAID Answer: Yes, it is confirmed that the total target is 500 grants over five years. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

10. Section C.5.2 (page 19) states that co-investment grants to SMEs should have a leverage ratio of no less than 5:1. The statement of work focuses on engaging unfinanced and under-financed businesses, first-time borrowers, and those directly impacted by the war, as well as women entrepreneurs who face additional barriers to accessing finance. However, this leverage ratio may further hinder the participation of some businesses in these groups. Would USAID consider a leverage ratio of 5:1 as an average for grant programming rather than a minimum? The implementer could seek greater leverage from businesses with more significant resources and the ability to secure additional funding while creating more flexibility for engaging less-established or more resource-poor SMEs.

USAID Answer: In Section C.5.2 of the RFP, USAID will consider an average leverage ratio of 5:1 ($1 of co-investment grants $5 of co-investment by the recipient) for SME Co-Investment Grants. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

11. C.5: On p.17 USAID writes “The Contractor must propose initial priority sectors but must ensure there will be no overlap with other USAID activities.”

a. Would USAID consider removing the restriction on overlap with other activities since it has potential to reduce program effectiveness if the Contractor is prevented from overlapping with any sectors in which USAID is working? This restriction has potential to reduce productivity if STRONG (and its service provider networks) is required to constantly calibrate its activities away from existing programming. It also has potential to reduce technical results if demand-oriented network partners have sector restrictions on their ability to work with SMEs to get results regardless of sector.

USAID Answer: The point of the statement is not to duplicate activities and is not meant to imply that the Contractor cannot seek to mobilize financing, create new market linkages and enhance competitiveness and innovation in SMEs in sectors which are being supported through other USAID activities. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

b. If USAID is unwilling to remove the restriction, and due to the incomplete and rapidly evolving information on DEC since the start of the war, can USAID please provide a list of all sectors in which USAID programs are working in Ukraine?

USAID Answer: Please see USAID Answers Section C.2 and C.11(a) above.

c. In relation to the quote above on p.17, the RFP states “The approach to selecting SMEs for assistance under STRONG UA is sector-agnostic, avoiding concentration in specific sectors or sub-sectors to allow for flexible implementation. The Contractor must propose initial priority sectors but must ensure there will be no overlap with other USAID activities.” Can USAID please explain how the offeror should utilize prioritized sectors in the implementation of STRONG (i.e., grants, finance, market linkages, BEE, etc.) in light of the instructions to avoid concentration in specific sectors or sub-sectors?

USAID Answer: Please See USAID Answer Section C.11(a) above - the support services which STRONG UA will provide are sector agnostic and are primarily intended to support finance in productive and growing companies, but the Mission seeks to ensure that duplication with other Mission activities will be minimized. For SME Co-Investment Grants, the Mission is aware that other USAID programs are providing partial grants and the Contractor is expected to take steps which will minimize competition between projects.

12. C.5 and L.7.1: In its description of Focus Area Two, USAID references facilitating grantees to “obtain co-investment and cost-share grants” (p. 17) and in the fifth question under L.7.1 again references “use of a cost-share grant” (p. 105). As defined in 2 CFR 200.306 and ADS 303.3.10, cost-share has specific accounting and documentation requirements. In our experience, cost share is generally associated only with cooperative agreements not Grants under Contracts. In addition, 2 CFR 200.201 and ADS 303.3.10 state that “fixed amount awards must not be used in programs that require cost share,” which would complicate the use of the envisioned pay for results compensation model. Would USAID consider removing the references to cost-share since co-investment can still be required as part of payment for milestones?

USAID Answer: All references to cost-share grants have been removed. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

13. C.5.1: Can USAID confirm that ‘8,00’ in the narrative is a typo and should be ‘800’ to match the target number of transactions in the table?”

USAID Answer: Yes, USAID confirms that the number is 800 transactions and not “8,00”. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

14. C.5.1: Can USAID confirm that the inclusion of text stating that the estimate of a 6% average risk mitigation for finance providers is for Offeror information only and that USAID does not anticipate that in mobilizing $1 billion in SME finance that the Agency or its IPs are expected to budget these costs, but rather propose approaches to mitigate a percentage of these costs?

USAID Answer: USAID developed targets based upon assumptions (for example, 6% cost required for risk mitigation for finance providers) but these are only for the Offeror’s information.

15. C.5.1: The RFP anticipates 800 financial transactions in Y1. While this number was adjusted down from 1,000 in the RFI, our experience in Ukraine suggests this is an unrealistic figure for Y1 and for a newly approved risk mitigation mechanism. Would USAID consider a target of 500 for Y1, particularly given that solicitations will go out to transaction advisers within 60 days and awards will not be made until 120 days? At the same time, USAID discourages repeat transactions, making the Y2 target of 4,000 transactions equally unrealistic; would USAID consider a target of 2500?

USAID Answer: While the targets provided are aspirational, USAID believes that the targets are achievable. The overarching objective is to mobilize 20,000 additional financial transactions over the life of the award in a value of not less than $1 billion. With regard to discouraging “repeat transactions,” it is more correct to say that USAID encourages longer-term transactions which will enable capital expenditures rather than short-term working capital transactions and discourage counting repeated short-term transactions for the same SMEs as separate transactions.

16. C.5.2: The RFP requires a very significant co-investment for SME grantees of 5:1, particularly in light of STRONG’s special focus on “unfinanced and under-financed businesses, first-time borrowers, and those directly impacted by the war” (p17). While some USAID projects in Ukraine, like IBR, have been able to achieve higher-than-average co-investment with grantees, their target grantees have been larger with more assets, established banking relationships, access to markets, and liquidity. In discussions with SME support partners in Ukraine that may apply to become network partners, as well as with an array of USAID and donor funded projects in Ukraine, we believe smaller firms, companies located near or within war impacted regions, and veteran- and women-owned businesses will not be able to commit to 5:1 co-investment given the current economic environment, decreased markets, labor challenges, access to finance, and uncertainty for the future. Setting such a high co-investment ratio may be at odds with USAID’s goal of reaching underserved SMEs. Would USAID consider reducing the expected co-investment with an expectation that USAID and the Contractor will regularly review the minimum requirement during formal pause and reflect sessions to maximize USAID’s investment?

USAID Answer: The special focus of STRONG UA, including Focus Area Two, is to support unfinanced and under-financed businesses, first-time borrowers, and those directly impacted by the war, and to do so in a manner which will leverage USAID funding to the maximum degree possible. As noted in Section C.7 of the RFP, this award will be issued on the basis of Collaboration and Flexibility as well as Adaptive Management, and thus targets can be reviewed and revised periodically, if necessary, in collaboration with USAID.

17. C.5.2: The anticipated number of grants over the life of the project increased substantially from the draft SOW (from 1,000 to 5,000) while estimated grants in Years 1 and 2 were reduced.

a. Can USAID confirm the expected total number of grants over the life of the project?

USAID Answer: USAID confirms that the total number of SME Co-Investment Grants over the life of the project is 500. Please see USAID Answer Section C.9 above.

b. Based on the total number of grants, can USAID confirm the target for the amount of SME’s own co-investment mobilized.

USAID Answer: The total amount of SME’s own co-investment mobilized should be $50 million as indicated in the table in Section C.5.2 of the RFP.

18. Throughout the RFP, USAID envisions multiple networks providing services across Focus Areas and Components. Can USAID confirm that network providers (firms or consultants) can provide services across multiple networks? For example, can a Transaction Advisor (Focus Area

2) also serve as a Market Linkage provider (Focus Area 3)?

USAID Answer: Yes, network providers can provide services across multiple networks.

19. C.5.3: Can USAID confirm that the inclusion of the estimate of $50,000 as an average transaction size is for Offeror information only and that Offerors may propose multiple approaches to facilitating $100 million in new sales regardless of the average transaction size?

USAID Answer: Yes, offerors may propose multiple approaches. . Offerors should focus on the five year’s targets and it should be noted that this activity is focused on SMEs and not larger enterprises.

20. C.5.3: Can USAID confirm that the “number of new market linkages” is “number of market linkage transactions” and that there may be more than one transaction per SME?

USAID Answer: Yes, there may be more than one transaction per SME. It should be noted that the new market linkage for an individual SME refers to access to a new market, not to new buyers within the existing market for this SME.

21. C.5.3: Can USAID confirm whether it envisions grants to SMEs – in addition to grants provided to SMEs under C.5.2 – specifically to create or strengthen market linkages?

USAID Answer: Offerors should propose uses of grants which will meet overall project objectives. It was not envisioned that grants would only be used to create or strengthen market linkages (other than through compensation for new market linkage advisors) but offerors are free to propose options on how grants may be used..

22. C.5.3: On p.19 under Focus Area Three, the RFP states that “Through its new market linkage advisors, the Contractor must establish new market linkages that lead to increased sales for SMEs, both domestically and in foreign markets. Individual new market linkages advisors or firms with relevant capacity may be engaged, as well as providers of training and certifications.”

Would USAID consider allowing the training, standards and certification work to be identified by market linkage advisors but be carried out by Innovation and Competitiveness Providers through the network of consultants in Focus Area 4?

USAID Answer: It is up to offerors to propose how they will utilize the networks to be established in order to maximize achievement of the expected STRONG UA results.

23. C.5.4: Can USAID confirm whether it envisions grants to SMEs – in addition to grants provided to SMEs under C.5.2 – specifically to improve performance?

USAID Answer: It is up to offerors to propose the uses of grants which will meet overall project objectives. It was not envisaged that grants would be used for this purpose (other than through compensation for consulting engagements by Innovation and Competitiveness Providers) but offerors are free to propose options on how grants may be used.

24. C.5.4: Can USAID confirm that the envisioned network of SME innovation and competitiveness consultants may be either firms or consultants? If consultants, may Offerors create a different category for SME innovation and competitiveness consultants that do not count toward overall LOE?

USAID Answer: The network of SME Innovation and Competitiveness consultants may either be firms or individual consultants that the offeror deems appropriate/suitable to achieve the project objectives/targets.The Government did not consider such consultants and firms to count under the offeror’s overall LOE.

25. C.5.4: The RFP states: “The Contractor is expected to facilitate new venture investment funds (at least four) over the life of the award, with an estimated amount of finance mobilized on average $80M and with support of $8M in catalytic funding.” Can USAID confirm that “new venture investment funds” is not limited to traditional VC funds and can include other funds focused on different SME growth stages (e.g., incubators that invest and provide acceleration services to enterprises; angel and impact investors; private equity; diaspora investors, etc.)?

Would USAID consider consolidating work with all types of finance providers under Focus Area One and Component One? Currently, the RFP includes venture capital as one of the examples of categories of finance providers under C.5.1 (Focus Area One) and C.6.1 (Component One). At the same time, C.5.4 (Focus Area Four) stipulates that “The Contractor is expected to facilitate new venture investment funds (at least four) over the life of the award, with an estimated amount of finance mobilized on average $80M and with support of $8M in catalytic funding” and C.6.2 (Component Two) states that the Contractor will “encourage innovative new financing and investment instruments.” These venture finance-related activities are quantified by two indicators in Focus Area Four: # of New Venture/Invest Funds supported; and Value of new funds supported.

a. The expertise required – and the likely activities associated with facilitating new venture investment funds, which will require co-creation with an array of finance and investment providers – are more aligned with C.5.1 Focus Area One/C.6.1 Component One. Would USAID consider moving the venture fund work and the two (2) venture fund-oriented indicators (New Venture/Investment Funds Supported & Value of New Funds Supported) provided under Focus Area Four, to Focus Area One/Component One?

USAID Answer: STRONG UA will require different sorts of expertise and it is expected that Offerors will provide the expertise required either directly or through grants and subcontracts, and that expertise will be applied across the different components and focus areas.

b. The expertise – and the relationships with partner financial institutions – required under Component Two to “Work directly with partner financial institutions to review and advise on improvements to systems that reduce the transaction costs for working with SMEs,” is more aligned with C.6.1 Component One. Would USAID consider moving this bullet from Component Two to Component One?

USAID Answer: STRONG UA will require different sorts of expertise and it is expected that Offerors will provide the expertise required either directly or through grants and subcontracts, and that expertise will be applied across the different components and focus areas.

26. C.5.5: Does USAID envision grants/subcontracts to expedite business competitiveness reforms? If yes, can these grants/subcontracts come out of the $80 million grant and subcontracting pool?

USAID Answer: While it was not directly envisaged that the plugged amount of $80 million for subcontracts and grants under contract would be used for Focus Area Five, Offerors should propose the use of the $80 million that will best meet the STRONG UA objectives/targets.

Please also see USAID Answers Section B.1 and Section B.2 above.

27. C.5.5 and C.6.3: The RFP states that “STRONG UA shall: Propose a set of advocacy, legal, and regulatory reforms….This reform package should complement other USAID and donor activities” (p.22 C.6.3) and that "…the Contractor shall propose justified actions, including advocacy, legal, and regulatory reforms, along with problem-solving initiatives, to address urgent needs for reducing the cost of doing business, facilitating trade and investment, and ensuring competitiveness" (p20 C.5.5). Can USAID confirm whether offerors are required to propose specific advocacy, legal, and regulatory reforms in their proposal for STRONG, or whether these will be identified and prioritized in consultation with local stakeholders post-award?

USAID Answer: In general, such reforms may be identified with stakeholders post-award.

Offerors are not required to propose specific reforms but are welcome to do so if they deem it necessary in the discussion of their proposed approach.

28. C.5.5 and C.6.3: Can USAID clarify whether the $80 million in subawards may also be used in support of activities under Focus Area Five and Component Three (e.g. studies or deliverables related to reform)?

USAID Answer: Please see USAID Answer Section C.26 and USAID Answers Section B.1 and B.2 above.

29. C.6.1: The RFP notes that STRONG UA shall develop a network of finance providers (banks, venture capital, leasing companies, etc.) with the appetite to consider new opportunities. Does USAID envision a financial/contractual relationship between finance providers and the Contractor?

USAID Answer: Yes, and these relationships can be funded through the $80 million plugged amount for subcontracts and GUCs. Please see USAID Answers Section B.1 and B.2 above.

30. C.6 and L.7.1: Can USAID confirm that Offerors do not need to provide separate narratives related to the three Components since Component-level requirements are fundamental to one or more Focus Areas?

USAID Answer: Offerors are not required to provide a separate narrative for the three Components listed in Section C.6.3 of the RFP if they determine that doing so does not add value to presenting their proposed technical approach.

31. Page 18, Section C.5.1 “Focus Area One” of the RFP states, “Assumptions envisage an average transaction size of $50,000, an estimated 8,00 transactions in year one…” Could USAID/Ukraine please confirm that this should be “an estimated 800 transactions in year one…”?

USAID Answer: Yes, please see USAID Answer Section C.13 above.

32. In section C.5.2 page 19, USAID has listed targets for total number of grants as 5,000 and co-investment mobilized of $50M. USAID has also stipulated no less than a 5:1 leverage ratio and the assumption of a max grant size of $20,000 in years 1 and 2. However, 5,000 grants with $50M co-investment mobilized at 5:1 leverage implies an average grant size of only $2,000.

5,000 grants at an average of $20,000 per grant would require $100M in grant funding and imply leverage mobilized of $500M. Given this, could USAID confirm the target for the total number of grants, including Year 1 and Year 2 targets?

USAID Answer: Yes, please see USAID Answers Section C.9 and Section C. 17. a. above.

33. C.6.2, Component Two, page 22 states: “This requires a network of innovation and competitiveness consultants to provide advisory and business development support to SME.” To allow more flexibility within offerors’ approaches, could USAID kindly revise to include “This requires a network of innovation and competitiveness consultants and services/solutions providers to provide advisory and business development support to SMEs.”

USAID Answer: The term “innovation and competitiveness consultants” should be deemed to include a broad range of consulting services and solution providers or any other kind of service providers Offerors consider important for maximizing achievement of the expected STRONG UA results.

34. Can the RFP define what the Mission considers an SME and whether it will use one across-the-board definition or multiple definitions depending on the sector?

USAID Answer: USAID/Ukraine defines SME in accordance with Ukrainian law, specifically with

Article 2 of the Ukrainian Law on Accounting and Article 55 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine.

Illustratively, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are those whose indicators, as of the last reporting date, meet the following criteria:

● Net revenues for the last 12 months: up to 40 million euros;

● Average number of employees: up to 250

Under Section D: None identified Under Section E: None identified

Under Section F:

1. Section F.6.1.c (p36) states “The Contractor for this Activity shall closely collaborate with a separately contracted research institution to generate new cost-effectiveness evidence through an impact evaluation, and likely a randomized evaluation.” The design and geographic reach of the Activity will therefore need to accommodate the impact evaluation—particularly if it is a randomized evaluation. Can USAID confirm that the research institution will be available for coordination during development of the First Annual Work Plan and the draft AMELP (which are both due within 60 calendar days after the contract’s start date)?

USAID Answer: Yes, USAID confirms the availability of the research institution for coordination during development of the First Annual Work Plan and the AMELP.

2. Section F.8 states that the position descriptions and associated minimum position qualifications for the 2 additional Key Personnel will be added to this contract section at award.

So that Offerors may mirror the detail and structure provided in Sections F.8.1 and F.8.2 (for the

COP and Director of Investments), would USAID accept the additional Key Position Descriptions as another allowed Attachment to the technical volume?

USAID Answer: Yes, the details for the additional key personnel, in the same format and structure as provided for the Chief of Party and Director of Investments, can be provided as an attachment (limited to no more than 1 page for each additional key personnel) to the technical proposal. However, Offerors must discuss in their narrative why these additional key personnel positions are appropriate for and relevant to the Activity and meets the requirements in Section C of the RFP.

3. F.2: USAID states that the base period will be two years and that the “option period of performance is October 1, 2028 – TBD.” The USAID Business Forecast currently lists the anticipated award date as 3/31/2025, which, assuming a start date soon after award, would suggest a base period end date around 3/31/2027. Could USAID please clarify the reference to October 1, 2028?

USAID Answer: Section F.2 of the RFP has been updated for more clarity. Please take note of the “Note to Offerors” regarding the conditions to exercise option years.

4. F.2: Based on the two-year base period, would USAID prefer offerors to budget demobilization costs in Year 2 or Year 5?

USAID Answer: For budgeting purposes, demobilization costs should be included in Year 5.

5. F.6.2.d: In describing annual pause and reflect between USAID and the Contractor, the RFP states: “Thereafter, every six months, the Contractor must conduct a pause and reflect sessions with USAID to inform fee and effort adjustments.” Is the reference to “fee” about the Contractor’s fee or the pay-for-results fees to various network providers and the programmatic effectiveness of those pay-for-results fee structures?

USAID Answer: The “fee and effort” reference pertains to pay-for-results fees to network providers and programmatic effectiveness.

6. F.6.2.f: Can USAID please confirm that aside from all necessary information sharing and coordination all costs associated with the impact evaluation will be borne by the separately contracted research institution and that offerors do not need to budget for related costs?

USAID Answer: This is correct. USAID will fund any research team’s time for designing the evaluation, travel, data collection, data analysis, and research dissemination costs separately.

Please be reminded that as stated in Section F.6.2(f) of the RFP, the Contractor shall organize and conduct an Impact Evaluation Workshop, 30 days after award to gather all parties. The research team will contribute to the workshop agenda.

7. F.8.2: Director of Investments. The RFP specifies that the candidate must have “experience in multiple countries, including [in] both emerging and developed markets.” This requirement creates a significant limitation in an already constrained labor market and may inherently disqualify and/or discourage Ukrainian candidates. Would USAID consider changing this requirement to “experience with multiple types of donor and non-donor investment and access to finance programming”?

USAID Answer: For the Director of Investments key personnel position, USAID welcomes candidates with experience in various types of donor and non-donor investment and access to finance programming, but only as supplementary experience beyond the requirements already outlined. USAID sees there are many potential candidates with relevant experience in investment banking and finance or banking globally and in Ukraine, and does not consider the requirement of having experience in multiple countries, including both emerging and developed markets, to discourage or discriminate against Ukrainian candidates in any way. Please see the related RFP update

8. Under F.8.2 Director of Investments, USAID notes the minimum qualifications to include “at least 5 years’ experience in investment banking including a leadership role within the investment banking division.” Considering that much of the actual investment and engagement on the cycle of investment will be conducted by the Transaction Origination and Finance Provider networks, this position may not require direct investment banking experience but rather experience with blended finance. Would USAID consider allowing experience in other private capital firms or development finance in lieu of investment banking?

USAID Answer: Five years of experience in investment banking remains a minimum qualification. Please see the related RFP update.

9. In section F.6.1 part B, USAID states that the “The Gender Action Plan (GAP) should outline how an activity is integrating attention to gender equality, including as related to the experience of marginalization, into the work plan and AMELP plan on the basis of the gender analysis.” Has a gender analysis for the Activity already been conducted? If so, could USAID please share it?

USAID Answer: Please see Attachment J.5 for a copy of the USAID Gender Analysis for STRONG-UA. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

10. In section F.6.1 part C, USAID states “The draft AMELP is due to the COR within 60 calendar days of the award for review and comment. The final AMELP is due to the COR within 90 calendar days from the award date.” However, the deliverables table on page 32 lists the draft due 120 days after contract start and 180 days for final approval. Would USAID confirm that the draft and final submissions of the AMELP are due 120 and 180 days after contract start, respectively?

USAID Answer: Yes the draft AMELP is due 120 days after the contract award date and the final AMELP is due 180 days after the contract award date. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

11. F.6, page 33, USAID has listed hosting and facilitating an Impact Evaluation workshop as a required deliverable with the due date of 30 days after contract start. As this workshop must happen with a separately contracted research institution, can USAID confirm whether they have already, or will already, have this institution contracted prior to award of the Activity?

USAID Answer: See USAID Answer Section F.6 above.

12. P. 41 F.7.d Can individual LOE labor categories be exceeded as long as the overall LOE amount is not exceeded?

USAID Answer: The labor categories for the resulting contract will be as shown in the table in Section F.7.c of the RFP. As indicated in Section F.7.b, the number of person-days or level of effort for any of these labor categories can be “realigned” to other labor categories, subject to the written approval or direction of the COR, with the understanding that this will not result in exceeding the overall total level of effort. Once the level of effort has been fully expended, the contract is complete. Unused LOE from previous years can be rolled over to the succeeding year period, but not to exceed the total LOE.

13. The two key personnel positions (KPPs) are skewed toward investing, with the COP required to have a “proven and successful track record in the investment sector or in facilitating investment projects” (page 42). However, there is no requirement for experience in expediting business reforms or running a USAID project. Would a COP who has significant experience running USAID projects and enhancing business competitiveness be considered for the COP position?

USAID Answer: Individuals with significant experience in leading and managing donor-funded development projects and projects that enhance business competitiveness are relevant qualifications for the COP key personnel position. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

Under Section G: None identified

Under Section H:

1. H.2: The RFP states that the authorized geographic code for procurement is 935 but uses the definition for code 937 per ADS 310. Will USAID please change the definition in the RFP to match the definition for 935 per ADS 310, which includes “any area or country including the recipient country, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source.” This will enable the Contractor to consider firms in the EU and other destination markets may be best suited to serve as market linkage advisors, whereas 937 would not.

USAID Answer: The authorized geographic code is 935 and defined as “any area or country including the cooperating country (Ukraine), but excluding any country that is a prohibited source”. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

2. H.1 e), Consultants, page 50, please confirm that firm fixed price and firm fixed unit price consultancy agreements under the SAT will not be subject to prior consent to subcontract requirement in FAR 52.244-2.

USAID Answer: Yes, consent to subcontract is not required for firm fixed price and firm fixed unit price consultancy agreements that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

3. H.1.g) Annual Salary Increases, page 51, we give annual salary increases (ASIs) for all employees at the same time. For employees who have worked less than 12 months, the ASI is prorated. The amount of the ASI is based on an employee’s performance and is in accordance with our established compensation plans (US compensation plan for US employees and Local employee compensation plan (LECP) for CCN staff). These compensation plans are established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Moreover, US-based staff who are not hired specifically or exclusively to work on the project may allocate their time to different projects.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the 10 percent cap on annual salary increases and completion of the 12-month period is removed both for both US and local staff.

USAID Answer: As indicated in this special contract requirement, annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) specified under AIDAR 752.7007 may be granted with the advance written approval of the Contracting Officer.

Under Section I: None identified Under Section J: None identified

Under Section K:

1. P.87 Please correct the NAICS code in Section K on p. 87 to be 541611 (same as on p. 1) rather than 541990 as it states now.

USAID Answer: The RFP has been updated accordingly.

2. P.101 Please confirm that a section K is required only for the prime subcontractor.

USAID Answer: Yes, the representations and certifications in Section K only apply to the prime contractor.

Under Section L

1. Budget allocation - can USAID provide more details on the expected budget allocation across the five focus areas (capital mobilization, co-investments, market linkages, innovation/competitiveness, and business reforms)? Is there a preferred distribution or flexibility for the contractor to propose?

USAID Answer: The Offeror must propose costs that it believes are realistic and reasonable for the work to be performed in accordance with the Offeror’s technical proposal.

2. Consortium Structure. Is USAID open to proposals from consortiums? Are there any restrictions or preferences regarding the composition of consortiums (e.g. mix of international and local organizations)?

USAID Answer: USAID welcomes the involvement of local organizations; however, we have neither restrictions nor preferences regarding the composition of potential consortiums, if any.

3. Since proposals will be submitted electronically, please confirm that USAID will accept signatures that are applied through electronic means as “original” (such as on the SF 33 in the cost volume).

USAID Answer: Yes, electronic signatures are acceptable.

4. There are two different definitions of “Major” subcontractors: those “expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort” (L.7, p104), and those “individually reflecting 20% of the total prime budget” (L.8(c)4, p109. Please confirm that the definition in Section L.7 applies.

USAID Answer: Major subcontractors are defined as subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort (as stated in L.7). The RFP has been updated accordingly.

5. Section L.7.2 (p106) requires a “detailed organization chart” along with the level of effort chart (per Attachment J.4). Please confirm that Offerors may submit the organization chart as part of Attachment 1 (which already contains the LOE chart per the list of required elements on Page 104).

USAID Answer: The one-page detailed organization chart shall be submitted as a separate attachment to the technical proposal and is not included in the 30 page limit. The RFP has been updated to include this required attachment.

6. (4.1) The “Required order” under Section L.7 (p104) includes “Attachment - Summary Table of Professional Technical Level of Effort (*See Attachment J.4 for required format*)” (emphasis added); however, Attachment J.4 does not contain a document link. (4.2) Section L.8(c)6 (“Level of Effort,” page 111) states “The Offeror must submit a table that details the technical Level of Effort (persons days) *broken down by prime and each subcontractor*” (emphasis added); the instructions then refer to RFP Attachment J.3 (Budget Template). (4.3) The Budget Template contains a “Summary LOE Template” as its third tab; however, this table does not appear to break LOE down by Prime/Subcontractor. Given (4.1), (4.2), and (4.3) above, please confirm that:

a. Offerors are to refer to Attachment J.3 (Budget Template), Tab #3 (“Summary LOE Template”) when preparing Technical Proposal Attachment 1.

USAID Answer: Please refer to Attachment J.4 for the “Attachment - Summary Table of Professional Technical Level of Effort” as indicated in Section L.7.2. There is no link to this document as it is attached to the .pdf version of the RFP (page 124) that was uploaded in www.SAM.gov. RFP has been updated with an updated Attachment J.4.

b. Offerors may edit the template in Attachment J.3, Tab #3 to show the breakdown between prime and subcontractors, per the instructions provided in Section L.8(c)6.

USAID Answer: RFP has been updated to include an updated Attachment J.3 - (attached as a separate excel sheet (labeled as “Updated ATTACHMENT J.3 Strong UA Budget Template_Amendment 02”) where Tab 4 (Updated Summary LOE Template now distinguishes each labor category summary by the prime and major subcontractor LOEs).

c. The tables in Cost Volume Part 3.6 (Level of Effort) and in Technical Volume Attachment 1 (Summary Table of Professional Technical LOE) are intended to match in both format and Content.

USAID Answer: Yes.

7. Section L.8(e) (Past Performance–Cost Volume, Part 5) (p112) refers specifically to “contracts.” Please confirm that USAID will accept past performance demonstrated through other mechanisms, such as cooperative agreements or grants.

USAID Answer: Yes, past performance information from cooperative agreements or grants are acceptable. Please provide the information on such awards in Attachment J.2 of the RFP.

8. The Past Performance instructions refer only to “the Offeror” or partners in a JV. Given that:

(a) Section L.7 states that major subcontractors may perform a prominent part of the technical effort (p104); and (b) Section M.4.c refers to sources (of performance information) identified by major subcontractors (p117); please confirm that USAID will accept Past Performance information from major subcontractors.

USAID Answer: Yes. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

9. Attachment J.2 (Past Performance Matrix template) (as downloaded from USAID’s website via the link) is an Excel spreadsheet that does not fit comfortably on the required paper size, so it would not convert legibly to PDF. Please confirm that Offerors may submit Attachment J.2 as a separate Excel file with their cost/business volume.

http://www.sam.gov

USAID Answer: Yes.

10. Section C.5, p17 states “The approach to selecting SMEs for assistance under STRONG UA is sector-agnostic, avoiding concentration in specific sectors or sub-sectors to allow for flexible implementation. *The Contractor must propose* initial priority sectors, but must ensure there will be no overlap with other USAID activities” (emphasis added). Section C refers to “the Contractor” (not “the Offeror”) and Section L does not contain any instructions regarding suggesting priority sectors. Please confirm that Offerors are NOT expected to include this as part of their technical proposal.

USAID Answer: . Please see USAID Answer Section C.2 and C.11 above and the revised RFP section C.5.

11. Section L.7.1 (p106): (1) requires a list of illustrative indicators for each result; (2) encourages 3 additional indicators for each Focus Area; and (3) requires annual targets for all…