Amendment_05_Q&A.pdf

Amendment 05 SOL-OAA-17-000108, Energy II IDIQ

1. Request a due date extension from March 19, 2018 to April 2, 2018. Our request is based on the changes that are required in response to the revisions contained in the IDIQ and Task Order 1, Amendment 4. The additional time will allow bidders the opportunity to properly address Task Order 1, attachment J.1.

USAID Response: USAID has extended proposal due date to March 22, 2018.

2. Given that requirements for the Smart Utilities and Sector Reform (SUSR) Task Order (TO) have been removed from the Energy IDIQ II solicitation, and that offerors now only have a total of 10 business days to respond to the new Burma Case Study requirements, would USAID kindly consider extending the proposal submission deadline by at least a week?

3. If on first USAID review, answers to questions received are thought likely to take more than 2 business days to respond to or entail any substantive changes to technical or cost proposal instructions or templates, can USAID promptly further extend the date of proposal submission?

4. Page 121 states that all labor categories using the CDRs are either long-term expatriate, long-term home office labor, or short-term expatriate consultant (non-employee). However, the template for IDIQ cost/price matrix provided also includes “short-term home office” and “short-term expatriate.” Could USAID please clarify which labor categories the offerors should assume?

USAID Response: This section has been revised. Please review Attachment J.2

5. Would USAID please confirm that offerors should apply indirect rates to the categories noted in the cost/price matrix that most closely match their indirect rate structure? For example, some offerors do not differentiate between “short-term expatriate consultant” and “short-term expatriate” when applying indirect rates.

USAID Response: This section has been revised. Please review Attachment J.2.

6. Would USAID please clarify if Row 27 “Fringe Benefits on Locals” in the Cost-Price Matrix is intended for offerors whose NICRAs include a rate for local fringe? If it is intended to cover local direct fringe, would USAID please provide a plug figure, since offerors may not contact local companies to gather data on fringe benefits in Burma?

USAID Response: The line item for local labor and fringe benefits has been removed.

7. Part 9 – Consent to Subcontract on page 127 now requests information in order for proposed subcontractors to be considered by the contracting officer for consent of subcontractors to be granted with the initial award of Energy IDIQ II. Given that the SUSR task order has been replaced with a hypothetical case study, would USAID accept consent to subcontract information at the task order stage?

USAID Response: USAID will still accept consent to subcontract at the task order stage. Those offerors who wish to be considered by the contracting officer for consent of subcontractors to be granted with the initial award of Energy IDIQ II can submit the required documents specified in Section L of the RFP.

8. Page 122 in Section L.8 Part 2 (b) USAID states that “In the sheet/tab entitled ‘Cost-Price Matrix,’ offerors must only use the ceiling indirect cost rates for the prime offeror.” Would USAID allow offerors to use their current NICRA in the Cost-Price Matrix instead of using the proposed ceiling rates?

USAID Response: Offerors must use the ceiling indirect cost rates for the prime offeror for the purpose of evaluation.

9. Can USAID please confirm that while USAID has requested offerors to use the plug figures contained within the Cost Price Matrix, the formulas contained within the Cost Price Matrix should be verified for accuracy by offerors as formulas with additions may not capture all of the correct cells?

USAID Response: All offerors must use the plug figures contained within the Cost Price Matrix.

The formulas contained within the Cost Price Matrix should be verified for accuracy by offerors as formulas with additions may not capture all of the correct cells.

10. RFP Section L.8, lead paragraph, page 122. This new paragraph requires that the cost/business proposal submittal consist of an Excel spreadsheet and a Word document. With the other listed cost proposal requirements (L.8 parts 1 through 11), the cost volume will now consist of many separate files including Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, and PDF files. For clarity and cohesiveness, would it be acceptable for offerors to submit a single PDF document including all section L.8 requirements, accompanied by the Word document and Excel workbook as requested.

If not, we recommend that AID provide a naming convention for the submittal files (Word document, Excel workbook, SF33, Sections K, audit reports, etc.).

USAID Response: Yes.

11. RFP Section L.8, Part 2, Attachment J.2, Cost Price Matrix spreadsheet.

a. Rows 58 to 129 of this spreadsheet are hidden. Please confirm that these rows are not relevant and may be cleared or deleted.

USAID Response: Hidden rows have been removed from the Cost-Price Matrix.

b. We are proposing a team that includes both major and minor subcontractors. We expect to allocate man-days in all labor classifications among the team members. The spreadsheet, however, does not provide any mechanism to show cost build-ups for major subcontractors (i.e. their indirect rate structures are different from the prime contractor) or fixed T&M rates for smaller subcontractors. May we modify the spreadsheet accordingly? If not, please explain how we should show the pricing for these subcontractors which will differ from prime contractor pricing.

USAID Response: For the purpose of evaluation, all offerors must utilize prime offeror’s indirect rates. Additionally, the proposed cost for all labor categories identified in Section B.6 must be unburdened ceiling daily rates. At the IDIQ level, USAID will only accept unburdened ceiling daily rates. As such, offerors must not quote ceiling T&M rates that are burdened in the cost-price matrix.

c. Line 133 includes a plug number for “Subcontractor Cost.” Please explain what AID includes in this amount.

USAID Response: Subcontractor line item has been deleted.

d. May offerors add additional spreadsheets to Attachment J2 to show supporting information?

USAID Response: Yes.

12. Can USAID explain what is meant by “subcontractor cost” in the cost-price matrix?

USAID Response: Subcontractor line item has been deleted.

13. RFP Section L.8, Part 3, Reps and Certs. We understand that reps and certs must be obtained from all subcontractors. Please clarify whether or not subcontractor reps and certs must be submitted with our proposal.

USAID Response: Subcontractor reps and certs must be submitted with the Prime’s proposal.

14. RFP Section L.8, Part 9, Consent to Subcontract. The FAR requirements for consent to subcontract include providing cost/price analysis of subcontractor’s proposed total costs. Since the Task Order is no longer part of this RFP, please explain what subcontractor cost/price information, if any, USAID would like to see in this section.

USAID Response: If offerors are proposing subcontractor’s rate for any of the labor categories, offerors should discuss that in this section.

15. Section L.8, pages 121-124 - In regards to Section B.7 and Attachment J.2 IDIQ Cost/Price Matrix:

a. Can USAID confirm whether it still anticipates awarding the IDIQ by September 30, 2018?

USAID Response: USAID anticipates awarding this IDIQ by September 30, 2018.

b. In the “Cost-Price Matrix” tab within Attachment J.2, USAID has included a line item for

“Fringe Benefits on Local” (line 127) and a plug figure of $600,000 for ODCs (line 135).

If Offerors recover their local fringe benefits directly (i.e. not through an indirect rate percentage, but as an Other Direct Cost), should the Offeror calculate fringe benefits for Locally Hired Personnel/CCNs based on past experience or leave line 127 blank, given that CCN fringe benefits are recovered based on actual costs and categorized as an ODC?

USAID Response: The line item for local hire has been removed.

c. Line 127 (“Fringe Benefits on Local”) requires Offerors to calculate a total amount for local fringe, using the provided plug figure amount of $26,000 (line 54). For Offerors who apply different fringe benefit percentages depending on the country of operation, can USAID provide further guidance on country selection or illustrative countries that Offerors should consider or comply with for the purposes of the cost/price evaluation?

USAID Response: The line item for local hire has been removed.

16. Section L.8, page 126 – May Offerors replace USAID’s FY2017 subcontracting goals embedded within Attachments J.5 and J.6 with the FY2018 goals, per USAID’s Small Business Goals webpage (https://www.usaid.gov/work-usaid/partnership-opportunities-refresh/smallbusiness/small-business-goals)?

USAID Response: Please use USAID’s FY2017 subcontracting goals.

17. Section L.8, page 127 – Can USAID please confirm that Part 11- Legislative Reporting Information is still a requirement for the IDIQ? With Task Order 1 removed, it is unclear how Offerors would be able to respond to the final bullet under Part 11 on page 127 (anticipated subcontracting information, including cost, periods of performance, services/commodities to be provided, etc.)

USAID Response: The final bullet has been removed. Please see revised RFP.

18. Section L.8 “Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal” in Part 5 “Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences” - Long-term expatriate positions are included in the cost/price matrix for 260 days per year, suggesting a full year for a single resource and direct billing of paid absences (holiday, sick and vacation leave, etc.). As some offerors account for and allocate the cost of paid absences within their indirect rates (e.g.

Fringe), as they will document in accordance with this section on, please confirm that offerors that allocate paid absences within their indirect rates can adjust the Level of Effort for long-term expatriate positions below 260 days to properly reflect indirect recovery of paid absences and consistent with a full year for a single resource, in order to ensure that all offers are comparable.

Otherwise, the IDIQ Cost/Price Matrix will double-count paid absences for offerors that allocate paid absences within their indirect rates, resulting in an unfair disadvantage in the evaluated price compared to other offerors.

USAID Response: Yes, for positions with 260 days LOE, offerors may adjust the LOE to reflect the full-time equivalent for individual labor categories, based on their own policies for recovery of leave days in established in their fringe benefit rates. However, any changes to Cost/Price Matrix must be explained in the accompanying cost narrative to ensure USAID is able to understand the revision in order to adequately evaluate the cost of labor.

19. Attachment J.2, in the Cost-Price Matrix tab, USAID seems to assume that all offerors budget for and direct bill 260 days per year for each long-term position (e.g., expatriates, home office, local), and possibly for “Short-term expatriate consultant” (Row 47) and “Short-term Home Office” (Rows 34 and 49).

a. For offerors where this is not the case, please advise if these offerors should adjust the 260 days (labor units) in accordance with their direct labor billing practices so that the fringe benefit rates and/or indirect rates and/or bases of application used in the Cost-Price Matrix explicitly match up with the respective rates and/or bases of application in their NICRAs?; and https://www.usaid.gov/work-usaid/partnership-opportunities-refresh/smallbusiness/small-business-goals https://www.usaid.gov/work-usaid/partnership-opportunities-refresh/smallbusiness/small-business-goals

USAID Response: Please see response to question #18 above.

b. The level of effort for some of the short-term personnel may be assuming that these personnel are treated as part-time employees (e.g., those at 130 days). Please clarify if all days for short-term personnel are considered directly billable, or if offerors should here make similar adjustments to those outlined in part (a) above of this question.

USAID Response: Offerors should not make adjustments to these labor categories and should assume they are directly billable.

20. Cost/Price Matrix, J.2 - In J.2 Cost-Price Matrix, if a bidder’s proposal is to subcontract for a specific labor category (e.g. Lawyer) should that line be pulled out of the Labor section and inserted in the subcontract section below?

USAID Response: Subcontractor line item has been removed.

21. Cost/Price Matrix, J.2 - In J.2 Cost-Price Matrix, by “long-term expatriate” does USAID mean staff to be based in the field (outside the US) in support of a USAID Mission program?

22. Cost/Price Matrix, J.2 - In J.2 Cost-Price Matrix, the Units for Cross Cutting Specialists is shown as small - 13 days, whereas many are 130 days. Is this a typo?

USAID Response: The Cost-Price Matrix has been revised to reflect 130 days for Cross Cutting Specialists.

23. B.6 Unburdened CDRs, J.2 - In J.2 Unburdened CDRs, the CDR table has an escalation rate for Years 2-5. Can USAID confirm that this should be for years 2-7?

USAID Response: The Cost-Price Matrix has been revised to reflect years 2-7.

24. Revised RFP, page 118, Section L.7 - Section 2 is titled “IDIQ Corporate Capability and Experience [See Section M.2.2]”, however on page 129 the revised RFP removed the acronym “IDIQ” as part of the evaluation criteria for Section 2 outlined in “Section M.2.2 Corporate Capability and Experience”. Can USAID please clarify the title for Section 2?

USAID Response: Prior to Amendment 04, the word “IDIQ” was added for the title of Section M.2.2 to differentiate the evaluation criteria for the task order and IDIQ. Since the task order is no longer part of the evaluation criteria, the term “IDIQ” is removed. The term “IDIQ” has also been removed from Section L.7(b)2 for consistency.

25. Revised RFP, Page 122, Section L.8 -The RFP states, “Indirect rates proposed cannot be higher than the rates established in their Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).” However, offerors have been instructed to use their proposed indirect cost rate ceilings for evaluation on the Cost-Price Matrix. Can USAID confirm that offerors’ proposed ceilings may be higher than their current NICRA rates?

USAID Response: Offerors’ proposed ceilings may be higher than their current NICRA rates.

26. For Question # 10 in Amendment 04, would USAID kindly provide a clear and appropriate response to the question? The response included in the Amendment is unrelated to the question.

Both the question and USAID’s response are pasted below for easy reference.

“Question 10. Can USAID kindly confirm if the following language under M.7 Contracting with Small Business Concerns applies for award not only of the IDIQ, but also of task orders under the IDIQ: “If, after evaluating all offers, USAID concludes that two or more offers are in effect equally eligible to be selected for the award, then the offer that provides the greater, most varied, and most realistic use of all the categories of small business concerns may be determined to be the best value offer and will be selected for award”.

USAID Response: Requirements related to the Smart Utilities and Sector Reform Task has been removed from the IDIQ.”

USAID Response: Evaluation criteria for task orders issued under the IDIQ will be specified at the time the Request for Task Order Proposal (RFTOP) is issued. At this stage, the language in Section M.7 is strictly referring to the awarding of the IDIQ.

27. Page 123 of the RFP, Section L.8, Part 2, (a) Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rate (tracked change) states “Offerors should assume that all labor categories using the CDRs are either long-term expatriate, long-term home office labor, or short-term expatriate consultant (non-employee) labor, as specified in the template following the position title.” Attachment J.2, IDIQ Cost/Price Matrix, includes “short-term expatriate consultant” labor and “short-term expatriate labor.”

Please confirm that offerors should price for both short-term expatriate (employee) labor and short-term expatriate consultant (non-employee) labor, as applicable per the Cost-Price Matrix tab in Attachment J.2.

USAID Response: This section and the line item in the cost/price matrix has been revised to only reflect either long-term, home-office, U.S.-based or short-term, home-office, U.S.-based labor.

28. Attachment J.2, in the Cost-Price Matrix tab, Rows 21 – 30 and Rows 58 – 119 are hidden in the

Excel file provided by USAID. Please confirm that offerors are to ignore and delete these hidden rows from the tab.

29. Attachment J.2., Cost/Price Matrix:

a. Please clarify if rows 21 – 30, which are currently hidden, should be filled out as part of the cost/price matrix.

b. If these rows are meant to be considered, please clarify if the stated positions should be home office long-term, home office short-term, long-term expatriate, or short-term expatriate.

30. Attachment J.2 IDIQ Cost Price Matrix’s tab “Cost-Price Matrix” includes hidden rows (21-30, 58-119). Would USAID please confirm that offerors may disregard hidden rows?

31. The Attachment J.2’s IDIQ Cost Price Matrix Tab includes a number of hidden rows. For example, in the CDR Labor sections for Senior and Mid-Level experts, the total number of days offerors are requested to price in the print version shows 5,353 days. However, if we include the hidden rows, the total number of days is 7,953. Please confirm that USAID would like the offerors to respond to the “print version” thereby pricing Senior and Mid-Level experts and Locally Hired Personnel Labor in rows 12 through 20; 31-34; 37- 49; and 54 (only).

32. With respect to the Cost Price Matrix, (and alternatively), would USAID consider providing a clean version of the Cost Price Matrix removing the hidden rows, in order to ensure all offerors use the same plug figures of days, etc.?

33. Rows 21-31 in the provided cost-price matrix (excel worksheet) were hidden. Are these lines intended for deletion?

34. Attachment J.2, in the Cost-Price Matrix tab, please confirm that the word “Direct” should be deleted from “Total Direct Cost” in row 142, since Indirect Costs appear to be included in this summation line.

USAID Response: “Total Direct Cost” has been revised to read “Total Estimated Cost Excluding Fixed Fee”

35. In a previous response to questions, USAID has affirmed that non-major subcontractors may be engaged on a T&M basis. For our team, certain labor categories will most often be filled with personnel from team partners operating on a T&M basis. However, the cost-price matrix has no provision for T&M labor. Should we quote ceiling T&M rates for labor categories likely to be filled with T&M personnel? If yes, can USAID modify the cost-price matrix to permit this?

USAID Response: The proposed cost for all labor categories identified in Section B.6 must be unburdened ceiling daily rates. At the IDIQ level, USAID will only accept unburdened ceiling daily rates. As such, offerors must not quote ceiling T&M rates that are burdened in the cost-price matrix.

36. The RFP instructions pertaining to the cost-price matrix instruct the prime offeror to apply its indirect rates to all CDRs. In reality, certain labor categories will most often be filled with personnel from team partners with different indirect rates, or which operate on a T&M basis. As a result, the “total estimated cost” produced by the cost-price matrix will not accurately characterize the price of the specified labor and cost mix for any given bidder. Given this, can USAID clarify the intended use of this total cost?

USAID Response: For the purpose of evaluation, all offerors must utilize prime offeror’s indirect rates.

37. The cost-price matrix requests fringe benefits for long-term expatriates and “local.” However, fringe benefits for long-term in-country personnel, whether expatriate or local, will depend in part on local costs and labor laws. In view of this, can USAID clarify the intended basis for “long-term expatriate fringe” & “local fringe” rates?

38. The cost-price matrix requires prime offerors to quote CDRs differentiated by “long term expatriate” “short term expatriate” and “short term expatriate consultant.” Is this intended, given that the “unburdened CDR” table (B.6) does not include these distinctions? If yes, USAID is requested to define each of these three terms as used in this context, and to clarify why some positions are to be filled only by long-term expatriates and some only by short-term expatriates, and some only by short-term expatriate consultants.

USAID Response: These line items have been revised to reflect long-term, home-office, U.S.-based or short-term, home-office, U.S. The purpose of this to see how offerors apply their indirect rates on various labor categories for evaluation purposes.

39. Attachment J.2, in the Cost-Price Matrix tab, Row 127 includes “Fringe Benefits on Local.” Since some offerors bill directly for local fringe benefit costs and do not have established rates for local fringe benefit costs as part of their NICRAs, would USAID please provide a percentage number to calculate local fringe benefit costs as function of direct local labor costs, for offerors who bill for local fringe benefit costs directly?

USAID Response: USAID has removed this line item.

40. Revised RFP, Page 122, Section L.8 - The RFP states, “Offerors may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year.” May offerors modify the table for B.7 Indirect Cost and Ceiling in J.2, to add in extra years, as currently only one ceiling rate per category is shown?

USAID Response: Offerors may modify the table for B.7 if they are proposing indirect ceiling rates for each contract year. As indicated in Section L.8, Part 2(b) if an annual ceiling rate is proposed, offerors must average the ceiling indirect rates and use that figure for evaluation purposes in the sheet/tab entitled “Cost-Price Matrix”

41. Annex B/C have been removed. Where in the proposal would USAID like to see an org chart and staffing?

USAID Response: No staffing plan or org chart is needed for the Case Study Program Design.

42. Attachment J.1 clearly states that the Case Study Program Design will solely consist of Technical

Assistance. The last paragraph of Attachment J.1 also states that “The program should be sustainable in the long-term.” Could USAID please clarify how a Technical Assistance program, which by its nature is dependent on donor resources to pay for long-term and short-term advisory services, can be considered sustainable? Does USAID mean that objectives/results described in Attachment J.1, once achieved, should be sustainable?

USAID Response: The objectives/results should be sustainable once achieved.

43. Page 135 of the RFP, Section M.2.1, Case Study Program Design, states “Offerors will be evaluated based on the extent to which the case study program design offers a strategic approach with strong potential to sustainably maximize progress towards the stated objectives.” Could USAID please clarify which stated objectives it is referring to here? Are these objectives equivalent to the three anticipated results identified in Attachment J.1?

USAID Response: Yes, the objectives are the anticipated results.

44. Revised RFP, Page, 117, Section L.7 - Is the Case Study Program Design a proposal, or a sample work product?

USAID Response: The Case Study Program Design is not an actual proposal, as USAID is not planning to fund or implement an electricity sector program in Burma. It is meant as a hypothetical proposal, to allow USAID to ascertain how the Offeror would approach the situation outlined in Attachment J.1.

45. Revised RFP, Page, 117, Section L.7 - Does USAID expect the Case Study Program Design to include the structure of an implementing team (e.g., labor categories drawn from the IDIQ list and level of effort for each)?

USAID Response: No discussion of implementing team is required for the Case Study Program Design.

46. Revised RFP, Page, 117, Section L.7 - Does USAID expect the Case Study Program Design to provide a summary breakdown of the $10 million budget over 5 years, or would such information not be allowed in a technical proposal?

USAID Response: USAID is not requesting a budget breakdown of the $10M.

47. Revised RFP, Page, 117, Section L.7 - Does USAID expect the Case Study Program Design to include a Performance Work Statement for the $10 million 5 year contract?

USAID Response: The Case Study Program Design does not require a Performance Work Statement. The Offeror can organize their Program Design as they see fit, so long as it includes the information requested in Section L.7.

48. Revised RFP, page 118, Section L.7 - For the Case Study Program Design, USAID requests that

Offerors “include a monitoring and evaluation plan and a results framework with indicators”. Can USAID share the strategic objectives of the USAID Mission in Burma for consideration when developing the results framework?

USAID Response: For the purposes of Case Study Program Design, Offerors should assume that USAID’s strategic objectives are the three listed desired results listed in J.1: improved operational and financial performance of the sector; increased electricity access; and improved planning and governance of the sector. The Offeror does not need to relate this hypothetical program to the USAID Mission’s other activities in Burma.

49. Page 118 of the RFP, Section L.7 (b) states that the project design must “include a monitoring and evaluation plan and a results framework with indicators.” Specific to the results framework, would USAID kindly provide additional guidance on the Assistance Objective (AO) and Intermediate Results (IRs) that it believes are applicable to achieving the objectives of the Burma Case Study (Attachment J.1)?”

USAID’s strategic objectives are the three listed desired results listed in J.1: improved operational and financial performance of the sector; increased electricity access; and improved planning and governance of the sector. Offerors should provide indicators by which they will measure progress towards these results. Offerors do not need to relate this hypothetical program to the USAID Mission’s broader Assistance Objectives.

50. USAID has requested that offerors “include a monitoring and evaluation plan and a results framework with indicators” on page 118. Specific to the results framework, would USAID kindly provide additional guidance on the Development Objective and Intermediate Results that they believe are applicable to achieving the objectives of the sample case study (Attachment J.1)?

USAID’s strategic objectives are the three listed desired results listed in J.1: improved operational and financial performance of the sector; increased electricity access; and improved planning and governance of the sector. Offerors should provide indicators by which they will measure progress towards these results. Offerors do not need to relate this hypothetical program to the USAID Mission’s broader Assistance Objectives.

51. Attachment J.1 Case Study provides illustrative funding of $10 million over 5 years. Without a cost submission, how does USAID intend to evaluate whether offerors’ case study responses are realistic given this funding?

USAID Response: Assessment of realism will be made on technical grounds, based on comparative USAID experience managing projects of this size, scope and duration.

52. Section L.7 (b) Contents of Technical Proposal requests the offerors to submit a program design in accordance with Attachment J.1. Case Study Program Design. Please confirm that USAID is looking for a program design only and is not requesting an actual approach for implementation of the program in Myanmar.

USAID Response: USAID is looking for a technical approach for a program design. No information related to staffing or administration of the hypothetical program is required.

53. As the Case Study is for a Program Design, please confirm that no resumes for technical specialists needed to implement the Case Study Design are required.

USAID Response: Resumes for technical specialists are neither required nor will be reviewed for the Case Study Program Design.

54. With respect to the Case Study Design, please also confirm that no LOE chart for the five year program is required.

USAID Response: No LOE chart is required for the Case Study Program Design.

55. Since the Asian Development Bank (ADB’s) Power Sector Development in Myanmar paper was published in October 2015, there have been several significant developments in the electricity sector in Myanmar that will affect underlying assumptions for the case study and the choice of recommended interventions. Could USAID clarify whether offerors should develop the Burma Case Study based on the 2015 status of the sector or the current state of the country’s electricity sector?

USAID Response: It is not expected that the Offerors have in-depth knowledge of the current status of the electricity sector in Myanmar. If the Offeror wants to use information not provided in the ADB’s October 2015 paper, it can do so as long as it provides sources for such additional information.

56. Should a staffing or implementation plan be included in the response to the Case Study?

USAID Response: Neither staffing nor implementation plan are required for the Case Study.

57. For the case study, should offerors also propose how they would staff the project, i.e. the core team position titles, whether the position is key or non-key, etc.?

USAID Response: No staffing plan is required for the Case Study.

58. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to highlight staff from their IDIQ roster of experts in an annex to the Technical Proposal?

USAID Response: It is not necessary to highlight staffing as part of the Case Study.

59. Are there any page limits for the individual components of the case study -- the approach, M&E plan, and gender considerations?

USAID Response: There are no specific page limits for individual components, so long as all requested components taken together collectively fall under the overall page limit for the case study.

60. Is the offeror supposed to propose a Performance Work Statement based on the USAID objectives listed in J.1?

USAID Response: The Case Study Program Design does not require a Performance Work Statement. The Offeror can organize their Program Design as they see fit, so long as it includes the information requested in Section L.7.

61. Can USAID provide some additional guidance and instructions or evaluation criteria on how to structure the Case Study Program Design?

USAID Response: The Offeror can organize their Program Design as they see fit, so long as it includes the information requested in Section L.7.