663-P-08-039-01.pdf

Washington DC 20521-2030

663-P-08-039

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODECODE

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:

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers X

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning ___1_______ copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate email or letter which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by email or letter, provided each email or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1 9

01 See block 16c

USAID/Ethiopia Acquisition & Assistance Management Office 2030 Addis Ababa Place

ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

08-30-2008

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment 1 is 1) to provide responses to questions received by the deadline of August 19, 2008 and 2) extend the closing date to September 24, 2008, at 10:00am Addis Ababa Time.

Therefore, the solicitation is hereby specifically amended as described in continuation pages 2-9.

Victoria Ghent, Supervisory Contracting Officer

Solicitation No. 663-P-08-039, Amendment 1 USAID Ethiopia Food by Prescription

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES

A. Technical:

Q.1. In reviewing the attachments posted with the RFP on the Federal Business Opportunities website on August 8, 2008 - FANTA/AED’s “DRAFT Trip Report: Ethiopia Nutrition and HIV, July 18-25, 2008” and a PowerPoint presentation that FANTA and AED prepared for USAID entitled “Briefing on Nutrition and HIV Globally and in Ethiopia” –we would appreciate clarification on the following:

a. Please clarify the role that FANTA will play in the implementation of the Food by Prescription program, similar to what is laid out in the table on page 24 of the RFP describing the roles of SCMS and other PEPFAR implementation partners.

b. Page 5 of the draft trip report prepared by FANTA notes that “SCMS has placed an order for 16 million sachets of RUTF from Nutriset for the Food-by-Prescription program…the 16 million sachets ordered would last 3-4 years.” Please clarify whether any RUTF will need to be purchased by the Food by Prescription program? Can USAID provide a dollar plug figure for procurements in the base and option periods for both RUTF and fortified blended food products? Similarly, does USAID have a dollar plug figure for the procurement of anthropometric equipment?

- Would USAID provide all prospective bidders with a plug figure for anthropometric equipment (pages 14 and 18 of RFP)?

- Page 14 under Nutrition Assessment – “Additional Equipment and materials to support anthropometric assessments may be provided if needed”, can we get a list of these equipments and materials?

c. Will USAID provide all potential offerors with any additional information regarding logistical challenges, pre-service training in nutrition, FANTA/SCMS support, and other items regarding FBP mentioned in the FANTA draft trip report?

d. Given this report, and FANTA/AED discussions with USAID about the design and implementation of FBP, is there a potential conflict of interest in AED bidding on this activity?

R.1.

a. FANTA is a technical assistance partner to USAID under a separate agreement. FANTA is not linked to the Food by Prescription program.

b. RUTF will not be procured under the FBP program. USAID does not have a “plug figure” for procurement of fortified blended food products. USAID does not have a “plug figure” for procurement of anthropometric equipment.

c. USAID has disclosed all information available and will not provide any additional documentation.

d. USAID has disclosed all information regarding FANTA technical assistance to USAID/Ethiopia which may relate to FBP on the public FedBizOps website. No discussion was held with AED nor was AED involved in design and implementation of FBP; thus it had been determined that there is no conflict of interest in AED bidding.

Q.2. On page 17 the RFP states that “the Contractor is expected to…integrate safer water systems with the FBP program.” On page 84 of the referenced RFP, USAID states that the Food by Prescription program will “procure and distribute local safe water products to FBP program beneficiaries.” Please clarify if the FBP contractor will be required to procure and distribute safe water products or simply provide linkages to existing safe water programs? If the contractor is required to procure and distribute safe water products, can USAID provide a dollar plug figure for this procurement?

R.2. The Contractor will procure safe water products. USAID does not have a “plug figure” for this procurement.

Q.3. On page 18 of the RFP, USAID states that “USAID envisions the FBP program to attach technical expertise to government offices as well as utilize training methodologies for physicians, clinical officers and nurses to scale-up rapidly and subsequently train a cadre of volunteer laypersons or nutrition counselors and helpers. Nutritionists shall work with existing PLWHA organizations to identify volunteers. USAID envisions that Nutritionists shall provide technical assistance and mentoring to nurses, health officers and case managers to triage, deliver services and support patients accordingly.” Does USAID envision the contractor will hire and employ nutritionists who will be placed within government offices?

R.3. USAID is opened to any offer on how to address the capacity gaps and placement of nutritionists may be required to support strategic programming and oversight. The location and number of placements should be decided by the Offeror.

Q.4. On page 20 of the RFP, USAID states that “HAPCO through GFATM, programs food and nutrition activities through RHBs. A full assessment of these initiatives is not available but is of interest to USAID.” Is this assessment currently underway or is it envisioned that it will fall under the scope of this project?

R.4. USAID does not have any documentation related to an assessment nor does USAID envision any assessment of the GFATM will fall under the scope of this project.

Q.5. On page 22 of the referenced RFP, USAID indicates that the pilot program will total 45 sites.

Can USAID please provide names and locations of these sites?

On page 28, section F.2 of the RFP, USAID states that “Performance of this contract shall primarily be at the Contractor’s and/or subcontractor’s facilities in Ethiopia. Would USAID provide more guidance on the proposed FBP geographic focus areas within Ethiopia and/or number of such areas?

R.5. USAID will work alongside the Contractor to select sites. We anticipate their location will be in major cities. In the meantime, we suggest you utilize the National ART reports to review high volume sites and to utilize this as a tool in developing your technical proposal.

Q.6. Can USAID please provide locations of World Food Program’s project sites where FBP may be asked to collaborate?

R.6.

14 towns where FBP may be piloted (total sites 20 Hospitals and 25 Health Centers) during the first year of the program.

Gondar Mojo Dese Awasa DebereBerhan Dilla Bahirdar Sodo Nazreth Addis Ababa Debrezeit Diredawa Shashemene Mekele

Q.7. On page 86 of the RFP, regarding Past Performance evaluations, there is mention of evidence of implementation of similar school based activities, however school based activities are not mentioned anywhere else in the statement of work, or technical approach. Please clarify.

- On page 86 of the referenced RFP, USAID includes instructions for the past performance section of offerors’ proposals. These instructions mention schools and education; is this accurate or can USAID provide further clarification on these instructions

R.7. Any reference to school and education is inadvertently included in the RFP. The paragraph 1 in Section L.7.4 is hereby revised as follows:

“1. List in an annex to the technical proposal up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar magnitude and complexity to this requirement. The Offeror must also have record of past performance and demonstrated experience in undertaking and successfully managing performance-based contracts.

The following past performance of the Contractor will specifically be addressed:

• Developing, implementing, and managing similar activities;

• Promoting and coordinating participation in development

• Collaborating closely with various levels of host country government personnel;

• Implementing cost-sharing and/or resource-generating activities;

• Transferring responsibilities to local institutions, organizations and other partner communities;

• Evidence of building local capacity

Q.8. Page 28 of the RFP states that “the FBP program will reach at a minimum 28,000 unique individuals annually” during years 2 through 5, whereas page 29 says that the year 2 and 3 targets are 18,000 and 24,000 respectively. These totals are inconsistent, please confirm the correct targets.

R.8. The targets in Section F.5.1 target tables are the correct ones and the second paragraph in F.4 is revised as follows:

“USAID envisions the FBP program will reach at a minimum 8,000 unique individuals in Year 1 through a minimum of 45 health facilities of which 25 are high volume health centers and 20 are classified as any type of hospital (i.e. Referral Zonal). During Year 2-3, and Option Years 4-5 USAID envisions the FBP program will increase its targets as indicated in table in F.5.1 and that it will reach a minimum of 28,000 unique individuals by Option Year 4 through a minimum of 120 health facilities in Year 2 and 200 health facilities in Year3 and 300 in Option Years 4-5 as indicated in table in F.5.1.”

Q.9. Page 29 of the RFP indicates that the number of health facilities involved will be 200 in years 3 through 5, and page 29 states that the number must be 200 during years 4 and 5. Please confirm the correct targets.

R.9. See response R.8 above

Q.10. On page 15, under C.4.1 Result 1, the RFP references the 2007 FANTA trip report which states “for clients with severe malnutrition, 276 g./client/day of Plumpy’nut equivalent and 400 g./client/day of CSMB will be provided. Once clients are no longer severely malnourished and transition to being moderately malnourished, they will receive 92 g./client/day of Ready-to-use therapeutic food [RUTF] equivalent and 200 g/client/day of CSMB.” Can the contractor propose an alternative blend of fortified foods that is more cost effective than the one noted in the FANTA report?

R.10. The Offeror may propose alternative approaches including an alternative blend of fortified foods.

Q.11. On page 14 of the RFP, USAID notes that the “program is not designed to address the issue of breastfeeding…” We assume this statement is referring specifically to the Food by Prescription aspect of the work and not to the nutritional counseling education piece. Please confirm that this is a correct assumption.

R.11. USAID/Ethiopia supports the application of AFASS related to breastfeeding and the use of substitute foods critical to all pregnant women. FBP, including the provision of RUTF/fortified blends, will interact with all HIV positive pregnant and lactating women.

Q.12. On page 17, the RFP states, “Approximately 20 percent of the resources of the FBP in Year 1 shall be used by the FBP contractor for market assisted approaches which may include vouchers obtained from public health facilities to collect products from commercial outlets or other variations”.

Would the evaluation committee accept innovative market assisted approaches in addition to the use of vouchers?

R.12. USAID looks forward to innovative market assisted approaches that may be different from the “vouchers” that are mentioned.

Q.13. With regard to facilitating site level readiness, will the Contractor be the lead while coordinating with SCMS?

R.13. The Contractor will be responsible for site level readiness.

Q.14. Within section C.4.2, Result 2, Section e. Support Pre-Service Training Opportunities for Nutritionists and Clinical Nurses, the RFP states that the Contractor is expected to “Provide fellowships for program graduates with FBP programs.” Does the evaluation committee have a minimum or maximum number of fellowships that they would like to see provided?

R.14. See Section F target table. The intention of the program is to support Ethiopia’s current capacity and human resource development of nutritionists.

Q.15. Would the evaluation committee accept innovative approaches to procurement of both RUTF and FBF by the Contractor?

R.15. Yes. However please note that the majority of RUTF will be procured by SCMS as noted in Section C6 of the proposal

Q.16. Does the proposed budget of $11 million include funding for procurement of RUTF and FBF?

R.16. Yes. The $11 million not to exceed total estimated cost plus fixed fee, if any, for the base period includes funding for procurement of RUTF and FBF.

Q.17. With regard to section of L.7.1 Technical Approach, number 6) Support the enabling environment for food and nutrition interventions including coordination, policy and economic opportunities for beneficiaries, unlike areas 1-5 in the Technical Approach (pg 83), does not have a specific subtopic within the RFP. Please clarify how you would best like contractors to address this result area and deliverable.

R.17. Offerors should propose technical approaches and activities that support the enabling environment. USAID does not have specific guidance or instructions on this area that have not already been mentioned in section C and L.

B. General:

Q.18. In the cover letter of the referenced RFP, USAID lists the closing date for this procurement as September 6, 2008. Given that September 6 is a Saturday; will USAID be able to confirm receipt of either an e-submission or hard copy delivery on that date? Alternatively, could USAID move the closing date to the following Monday, September 8, 2008?

- It is our understanding that when a published proposal due date falls on a Saturday, such as this one, that the actual due date becomes the following business day. In this case, that would mean this proposal is due via email or hard copy on Monday, September 8. Please confirm whether the actual due date is Saturday, September 6 or Monday, September 8.

- The closing date for the Food by Prescription for HIV/AIDS Care and Treatment Programs in Ethiopia RFP is September 6, 2008. The 6th of September falls on a Saturday this year. Is it possible to submit the proposal on the following Monday, September 8, 2008?

- Please clarify if deadlines are reflective of DC or Addis Ababa time.

R.18. The Closing date is hereby extended to Monday, September 24, 2008, 10:00 a.m. Addis Ababa time.

Q.19. If Offerors submit their proposals (technical and cost) by email on or before the due date; may they follow with a hard copy postmarked by the due date but received by USAID Ethiopia at a later time?

R.19. Yes. If offerors submit their proposals by email, they may follow with a hard copy postmarked before/on the due date but received by USAID/Ethiopia at a later time.

Q.20. Is the PMP to be submitted as part of the body of the technical within the Management/Institutional Capacity Section, or, as an Annex not counting towards the page limit? On

pg. 83, section L.7 (c), there is a list outlining proposed attachments to accompany the Technical Proposal, although it is not certain whether or not this list is exhaustive. On pg. 85, section L.7.3, of the RFP, it is stated within the scope of the Management/Institutional Capacity Section that a preliminary PMP is to be submitted. It is implied that it is to be part of the body of the main document but not explicitly stated. Can you please clarify?

R.20. The PMP shall be submitted as an Annex and referenced in body of proposal.

Q.21. Is the detailed schedule of activities upon award (Work plan) to be submitted as part of the body of the technical within the Management/Institutional Capacity Section, or, as an Annex not counting towards the page limit? On pg. 83, section L.7 (c), there is a list outlining proposed attachments to accompany the Technical Proposal, although it is not certain whether or not this list is exhaustive. On pg. 85, section L.7.3, of the RFP, it is stated within the scope of the Management/Institutional Capacity Section that a detailed schedule of activities is to be submitted. It is implied that it is to be part of the body of the main document but not explicitly stated. Can you please clarify?

R.21. The Schedule of Activities shall be submitted as an Annex and referenced in body of proposal.

Q.22. On page 85 of the referenced RFP, USAID states “A complete and current resume…must be submitted for each proposed key personnel candidate…accompanied by a signed letter of commitment.” In the next paragraph USAID states that “The same applies to proposed consultants positions and candidates.” Please clarify whether resumes and letters of commitment are required for key personnel only, or for all long-term personnel, including proposed non-key personnel? Similarly, please clarify whether resumes and letters of commitment are required for proposed illustrative short-term consultants or if a matrix outlining short-term consultants’ qualifications would be sufficient in lieu of resumes?

R.22. Offerors are required to submit resumes, letter of commitments and bio-data only for Key Personnel. Offerors are encouraged to submit Resumes and bio-data for consultants identified in the proposal (if any) so they can be approved at time of award. Offeror’s shall submit resumes and letter of commitments for key personnel as an annex to the technical proposal and bio-data with salary history as an annex to the cost proposal.

Q.23. On page 87 of the referenced RFP, USAID states: Offerors must submit separate Cost/Business Proposals for each of the two sectors in three ring binders…” Please provide clarification regarding what sectors the RFP is referring to. On page 87, the RFP states that Offerors must submit separate cost/business proposals for each of the “two sectors” – please clarify what these sectors are and how to divide the budget. On page 87 sec. L.8: Instructions for the preparation of the Cost Proposal. “Offerors must submit separate Cost/Business Proposals for each of the two Sectors in 3 ring binders…..” Please explain the reference to 2 sectors.

R.23. On page 87 of the RFP, L8, the first paragraph, delete the phrase “for each of the two sectors”.

Q.24. Section L.7.3 page 85 – This is labeled Management/Institutional Capacity, but seems to refer only to the Management Plan for the current proposal. Please clarify.

R.24. USAID has outlined its instructions in this section. No additional clarification provided.

Q.25. Section M page 94 Technical Evaluation, Numbers 3 and 4 – Please clarify which section should contain the offeror’s institutional capacity. Should it be Number 3 or Number 4? Two of the bullets listed under number 3 seem to refer to the Management Plan for the current proposal, while the third seems to refer to Institutional Capacity/Past Performance.

R.25. Section M.3.3 addresses management and institutional capacity. Section M.3.4 addresses past performance.

Q.26. For electronic submission, will USAID accept the Cost proposals in PDF format, in addition to the excel budget and word narrative?

R.26. Cost proposals, detailed budget and summary, shall be submitted in excel that includes calculations. Budget narratives shall be submitted in word version. Other annexes to the cost proposal (Copy of NICRA, Bio-data…etc) can be in PDF format.

Q.27. The RFP list two authorized geographic codes (000 and 935). Which one is correct?

R.27. The authorized geographic code for the contract resulting from this solicitation is 935.

Q.28. The RFP states that personnel and contractors need to have French language proficiency. Can you confirm whether this is in fact correct?

R.28. This was inadvertently included into the RFP. Personnel and contractors need to have English language proficiency not French.

END OF AMENDMENT 01 TO RFP 663-P-08-039

NOTE: questions regarding this RFP Amendment shall be emailed to caddis@usaid.gov , mcsow@usaid.gov and hamenu@usaid.gov .