PSA HIV RFP P0003 Questions and Answers Round 2.pdf

RFP No. 7200AA21R00097 Amendment 03 Procurement Service Agent HIV/AIDS

USAID NextGen Global Health Supply Chain

# Section Reference Question Answer

General Questions

1 RFP Amendment 0002, Attachment J.11, Page 1, Cover Letter; page 33, Sub-section F.2; page 217, Sub-section L.8.2 – Part 1(a-b)

The Cover Letter and Sub-section F.2 define the period of performance of the award as including one base period and two option periods of undefined timeframes. However, Sub-section L.8.2 – Part 1(a) and (b) and attachment J.11 instruct offerors to budget according to one base period of four (4) years, and three option periods of three (3), two (2), and one (1) year. Would USAID please reconcile this inconsistency by clarifying the number and length of each period within the full 10-year period of performance, including the base and any options, and update the instructions for budgeting assumptions, as necessary?

The dates given in the instructions for the preparation of the Cost Volume are illustrative only for the purpose of preparing the cost volume. The actual dates of the base period and option periods cannot be defined at this point in time.

2 Section A p.11 Could USAID please provide an updated SF-33 with the revised submission date for Offerors to complete?

The SF-33 can be found here https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf

Section B

3 RFP Amendment 0002, Questions and Answers, Page 12, Sub-section B.3(a); page 5, The total estimated cost of $5 billion defined in Sub-section B.3 of the amended RFP, inclusive of the commodities plug value of

The total estimated cost remains unchanged.

Please see instructions under Section L.8.3 regarding the purpose of the plug figure, and https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF33-22.pdf

Answer to Question 17 $4.867 billion, results in $13 million per year for non-commodity costs. This non-commodity costs budget will be required to cover all expenses related to executing $500 million of commodity procurement and delivery annually, providing an information technology solution (ITS) with end-to-end visibility and capabilities to exchange and visualize data with the NextGen Control Tower award and suppliers, expanding local procurement, effectively managing costs, coordinating with all other NextGen mechanisms, and producing more than 20 reports in Year 1, with nine more annually thereafter.

According to public data available on usaspending.gov, the current contractual ceiling of the Global Health Supply Chain Program – Procurement and Supply Management project (GHSC-PSM) Task Order 1 (TO1) contract, which is the vehicle most closely aligned in scope of work with PSA HIV, is $5.8 billion over a nine-year period of performance.

In light of the budget incongruencies between GHSC-PSM TO1 and this solicitation, would USAID consider increasing the total estimated cost of PSA HIV?

that it does not inform any other section of the

RFP.

4 Amendment 002, Pg. 12;

Section B.3, subsection a)

Section B.3, subsection a) states that "The total estimated cost plus all the maximum fees is [$5,000,000,000 ($5 billion)]. Given that Section B.3 a) provides the government's estimated cost of the contract, can the government please confirm that it will not negatively evaluate offerors that exceed the $5 billion estimate in their cost proposal submission?

The cost proposal will be evaluated for cost realism, completeness, and reasonableness in relation to the SOO/PWS.

In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, cost will be a selection factor and considered in making the best value determination.

5 Pg. 12; Section B.3, subsection a)

Section B.3, subsection a) states that "The total estimated cost plus all the maximum fees is [$5,000,000,000 ($5 billion)]. Can the government please confirm that the government's stated total estimated cost is the contract ceiling value?

The total estimated ceiling value will be determined at the time of award.

6 Pg. 12; Section B.3, subsection a)

Section B.3, subsection a) states that "The total estimated cost plus all the maximum fees is [$5,000,000,000 ($5 billion)]. If it is assumed to be the contractual ceiling value, this is a far smaller amount of money between the commodity cost plug number and the contractual ceiling value compared to the Integrated and Lab/Diagnostics PSAs. This may

The total estimated cost remains unchanged.

The total estimated ceiling value will be determined at the time of award.

make PSA HIV not economically viable. Will the government consider increasing the contractual ceiling value to a percentage of the commodity plug number equal to or greater than the Integrated PSA?

Section C

7 Original RFP Page 254; Section

C.6.4 COMMODITIES

REGISTRATION

The section does not appear to clearly delineate commodity registration responsibilities between the PSA HIV Contractor and the TA Contractor. Can the government please provide any additional clarification?

Product registrations are the responsibility of the manufacturers. The PSA HIV Contractor must ensure that procured products are appropriately registered in countries the products are destined to be delivered to. Any support provided to manufacturers is outside the scope of the PSA HIV contract.

8 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 243, C.6.1 Commodities to be purchased, 6) Laboratory equipment, reagents, and consumables

Can USAID provide the historical procurement information for the category laboratory equipment, reagents, and consumables that will be procured under the PSA HIV only (so not included in PSA Diagnostics). Specifically, the number of unique SKUs/ products and the number of RO’s and POs per year.

The data sets provided in Attachment J.5 contain the product information required to respond to this solicitation.

9 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 247, Result 3c, PS 3c: Is "In Year 1, determine the baseline amount of value-added manufacturing of supplied commodities on the African continent. In Year 2 and beyond, The RFP has been amended to state: “Offerors will determine the baseline value-added manufacturing capability of sources on the African continent for HIV PSA commodities in increase the percentage of value-add in Africa by at least 3% year over year.”

Would USAID please confirm that Performance Standard 3c should say, “In Year 1, determine the baseline value-added manufacturing capability of sources on the African continent for HIV PSA commodities? In Year 2 and beyond, increase the percentage of commodity spend from value-add manufacturers in Africa by at least 3% year over year.”

Year 1. In Year 2 and beyond, the PSA will work to increase the percentage of commodity spend from value-add manufacturers in Africa by at least 3% year over year.”

10 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 248, Attachment J.1 – Statement of Objectives, Section C.7, Objective 4

The result labeled “4d” on page 247 (The value of product expiry, loss, damage, or theft is brought to a minimum”) corresponds to Result 4e in the original RFP. However, the Performance Standard shown under this result is labeled Performance Standard 4e.

Can USAID kindly confirm that the Performance Standard labeled 4e in the revised RFP should be labeled 4d?

Can USAID also kindly confirm that result 4d from the original solicitation (Average shelf-life remaining for commodities (weight by the value of commodities) at the time of delivery at

Yes, this was a typo in the numbering. Please refer to the most recent version of the RFP, Amendment 3 to reflect the latest changes and updated information.

destination country(ies) is increased) is no longer expected to be tracked, and that the only indicator or standard for shelf-life remaining is the KPI listed in Section F.7.e?

11 RFP Amendment 0002, Questions and Answers, Page 18, Answer to Questions 68

USAID’s answer encourages offerors to submit a list of proposed reason codes. Reason codes are not referenced in Section L or Section M.

Could USAID specify where reason codes should be listed within the proposal and how they will be evaluated?

The RFP does require Offerors to include reason codes in their proposal, therefore these will not be evaluated.

12 Question and Answers, Page 18, Question #68: Reason codes for KPIs

Would USAID kindly confirm that offerors may include the reason codes for the KPIs in the

QASP?

The purpose of a QASP is to define performance standards, surveillance methods, and the frequency of surveillance. Please refer to Annex B for additional information.

13 Questions and Answers, Page 13, question 45 referencing GS1 developed/in-use GS1 EPICS standards

USAID’s response includes the following statement: "In addition to agency need, requiring this commercially available capability upon contract execution ensures that the US taxpayer does not subsidize the cost of deployment, directly or indirectly.”

Can USAID kindly clarify what is meant by the term "indirectly," including the implications for cost recovery of technology resources that would normally be covered by a contractor's NICRA rate?

The Offeror’s are required to have an operational ITS which fully meets the required specifications in fit, form and function at the time of demonstration as identified in Section C.6. USAID does not anticipate requiring allocable ITS costs at this time.

14 Page 254; Section C.10.6 Gov’t sentence. “The Contractor shall begin taking over activities on the effective date of the contract. The Contractor must work to achieve a seamless transition from the incumbent contractor(s), ensuring that there are no delays or downtime and that all elements of a fully functional, effective, and efficient program are taken into consideration.”

Can the offerors anticipate access -- upon contract award -- to the most recent GHSC- PSM supplier data to enable a “seamless transition from the incumbent contractor(s), ensuring that there are no delays or downtime” during transition while establishing a Data Sharing & Use Agreement (F.10) with the NextGen Control Tower, to evaluate and assume/renegotiate existing pricing agreements with the existing Global Health Supply Chain suppliers?

The PSA HIV contractor will collaborate with the current incumbent contractor to ensure there is a seamless transition, preventing any delays or downtime.

Section F

15 RFP Amendment 0002, Questions and Answers, Page 24, Answer to Question 94

The response to Question 94 states, “proposals must include a narrative that clearly describes offeror’s understanding of the task and provide broad strokes of their

As stated in Section F.6 (b), the Contractor is required to submit a transition plan 60 days after award.

[transition and mobilization] plans to address items 1 through 5 that are listed in F.6.b.” In the amended RFP, however, neither sections L nor M refer to transition and/or mobilization.

Would USAID clarify in Sections L and M whether and where the information referenced in F.6.b should be included in the offeror’s proposal and under which factor it will be evaluated?

16 Questions and Answers, Page 24, Question 94, referencing the transition plan

Question 94 states that “Proposals must include a narrative that clearly describes offeror’s understanding of the task and provides broad strokes of their plans to address the items 1 through 5 that are listed in F.6.b. The RFP has been modified to clarify.”

We were unable to identify where the transition plan should be included in Sections L or M. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should include the requested narrative within Annex D?

As previously stated in response to question 94 in the previous Q&A, the Transition Plan is a post award deliverable and offerors are not instructed to submit, nor will one be evaluated as part of the proposal.

For clarification, Annex D should include how the offeror will incorporate the project constraints (see Section C.10.6) for all phases of project implementation, including transition phases, as stated in Section L.7.3, which has been updated in Amendment 3 of the RFP.

17 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 49, Table F.1 and F.23

According to Table F.1, deliverable 18 states ITS Operational data is 30 days after award.

But according to the description, this data must be provided in alignment with the plan for management of ITS operational data, and it

The ITS Operational data deliverable has been updated to 90 days post award in the amended Table F.1.

must comply with the processes and requirements outlined in the data sharing and use agreement, both of which are due in 90 and 60 days respectively. Can USAID please update the draft due date for ITS Operational data to 90 days after award?

Section G

18 RFP Amendment 0002, Questions and Answers, Page 26, Answer to Question 98

Answer to Question 98 (regarding page 54, Sub-section G.2 of the original solicitation) states that USAID will not consider issuing a letter of credit under this contract. Given the nearly $5 billion commodity plug figure for this contract, without a letter of credit or other advanced funding means the contractor must obtain access to roughly $500 million per year in financing to cover the cost of capital from the time the supplier is paid until the contractor is reimbursed — which would result in prohibitively high and unrecoverable interest expenses (conservatively estimated at $40M or more over the life of the contract). If Offerors are expected to bear this expense, then the economics of the contract will not be viable and otherwise qualified Offerors may not respond to USAID’s solicitation. As such, consistent with how the Agency addressed this

USAID will adhere to the strict guidelines regarding payment as specified in FAR Subpart 32.1.

issue in 2014 with RFP No. SOL-OAA-12- 000128 for the USAID Global Health Supply Chain Program, we kindly request that USAID incorporate FAR 52.232-12, ADVANCE PAYMENTS (MAY 2001), by reference into the contract.

19 Responses to Questions, Page 26, #98

As USAID will not consider issuing a Letter of Credit under this contract, how will USAID support the contractor's ability to make prompt payments to commodity suppliers for the $4.8 billion commodity plug? Would USAID consider advance payments, specifically for commodity vendor payments?

USAID will adhere to the strict guidelines regarding payment as specified in FAR Subpart 32.1.

Section H

20 FAR Clause 52.232-12 We noticed that this solicitation did not include FAR Clause 52.232-12 (Advance Payments) in the RFP documents. Would the government be willing to add the Advance Payment clause to the solicitation?

USAID will adhere to the strict guidelines regarding payment as specified in FAR Subpart 32.1.

21 RFP Amended; p70, H.6 H.6.c says, “Operational data generated by another NextGen contractor can only be transmitted through the NextGen Control Tower. Direct electronic exchange of operational data between the contractor and

The contractor must comply with operational data agreements as a requirement of this contract. Operational data generated by another NextGen contractor can only be transmitted through the NextGen Control other NextGen contractors is not permitted unless otherwise approved by USAID.”

Is email correspondence between NextGen parties permitted?

Tower. Direct electronic exchange of operational data between the contractor and other NextGen contractors is not permitted unless otherwise approved by USAID.

22 RFP Amended; p71, H.6.e.ix Can USAID clarify what is meant by “product eligibility list by category”?

Offerors can refer to this website for more information.

https://www.ghsupplychain.org/for-suppliers/ghsc-eligible-lists.

23 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 71, Section H.6, Sharing of Operational Data with the NextGen Control Tower, paragraph e) item x

Can USAID please confirm that the “quality incident management system” referred to in this item concerns product or commodity quality, and not quality of operational data as defined in paragraph a) of Section H.6?

Yes, USAID confirms that the “quality incident management system” referred to in Section H.6.e) item x refers to product or commodity quality and not quality of operational data as defined in Section H.6.a.

Section I

24 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 124, I.10

Given USAID's desire to promote competition in the NextGen procurements and the magnitude of the commodity costs, which would be prohibitive for most offerors to incur and carry until reimbursement, would USAID consider allowing advanced payments on commodity costs in line with FAR 52.232-12 as a part of the contract?

USAID will adhere to the strict guidelines regarding payment as specified in FAR Subpart 32.1.

25 Amendment 002, Page 105; FAR 52.237-7 requires the Contracting Officer Offerors may propose an amount to be filled in https://www.ghsupplychain.org/for-suppliers/ghsc-eligible-lists https://www.ghsupplychain.org/for-suppliers/ghsc-eligible-lists

52.237-7 Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance to insert the dollar value(s) of standard coverage(s) required under this clause. Can the government provide this dollar value so bidders can ensure they have sufficient insurance coverage?

that they believe is sufficient to cover the scope of work and risk involved and the final amount will be negotiated at the time of award. This amount may be noted in the budget narrative section of the cost proposal where ODCs are discussed.

Section J

26 Original RFP, Attachment J.11;

RFP

CLIN x001-x005 tabs (J.11);

L.8.2.h.8.xi (p. 228, RFP); C.6

(pp. 252-253, RFP); C.7 (pp.

254-257, RFP)

The CLIN x001-x005 tabs in Attachment J.11 require offerors and sub-offerors to allocate labor and ODCs to three SOOs, which somewhat align with those outlined in Section C.6 of the RFP. Part L.8.2.h.8.xi of the RFP instructs offerors to map candidates’ labor effort to SOO performance objectives, which are outlined in Section C.7. Section C.7 references four SOO performance objectives whereas Attachment J.11 and C.6 reference three SOOs according to the scope of the activity. Can USAID clarify which SOOs should be used to allocate labor and ODCs in the budget submission?

Please see Attachment J.11.

27 Original RFP, Attachment J.14

ANNUAL ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI)

CERTIFICATION AND

It appears that Attachment J.14 has a typo in the header which labels the document as J.15.

Can the government please confirm the typo and advise the correct header label? In

Please see Attachment J.14 which addresses these issues.

DISCLOSURE addition, it appears that the OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION and NOTIFICATIONS paragraphs reference Sections H.9 and H.19 which do not appear to be the correct paragraphs. Can the Government please verify the H clause Section Numbers?

28 RFP Amended, Attachments J.8 and J9, Goals

Since Amendment 2 updated Attachment J8 Goals -- SB 13.75% and SDVOSB 5.0%, should the Attachment J9 Goals be updated to match?

Please see Attachment J.9.

29 Statutory SB Utilization Template, Page 3, Section 2.

Goals, Paragraphs a-i

In the Statutory SB Utilization Template, offerors are requested to provide SB subcontracting dollar estimates as stated below:

“Total estimated dollar value of ALL planned subcontracting, i.e., with ALL types of concerns under this contract is

(Base Period + All Option Periods).

Total estimated dollar value and percent of planned subcontracting with SMALL BUSINESSES (including SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB and SDVOSB, ANC and Indian Tribes): (% of “a”) $ ________________

Yes, USAID confirms that in Attachment J.9 the calculations are as stated in this question - the percentage is calculated based on the denominator of ALL TYPES OF SUBCONTRACTS and that this applies to the calculations in Attachment J.8.

Could USAID please confirm that the subcontracting dollar values requested in paragraphs b though I should reflect a percentage of the value in paragraph a, total estimated dollar value of all planned subcontracting, rather than the total proposed contract value (excluding the commodity plug figure) of PSA HIV and that this same logic should extend to the percentages represented in Attachment J.8?

30 RFP Amendment 0002, Attachments J.8 and J.9, First tab, Cell H8, Attachment J.8;

pages 2-3, Attachment J.9, “USAID’s FY 2024 Subcontracting Goals are”

Attachment J.8 includes the USAID Fiscal Year 2024 U.S. SB Concerns Goals of 13.75%.

Attachment J.9 specifies a goal of 14.50%.

Would USAID please confirm which is the correct goal?

Please see the revised Attachment J.9 that is included that correctly states the goal of 13.75%.

31 J.8 Subcontracting Plan Template (excel file row 8) and J.9 USAID Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template (page 3 of 11)

It appears that two of the stated small business goal categories do not match on J.8 and J.9. The J.8 US Small business goal is stated as 13.75% and SDVOSB is 5.0%, while the J.9 Small Business (SB) goal is stated as 14.5% and SDVOSB is 3.0%. Can the government please confirm which goal percentages we are to use for these two categories? Also, can the government please revise and re-issue the

Please see the revised Attachment J.9 that correctly states the goals.

attachment to reflect the correct goal percentages?

Section L

32 Original RFP, Section L.8.3(c) Page 229/J.1 and J.11

The RFP states, "The offeror’s budget narrative must explain the basis for any crosscutting staffing that is allocated among the SOO objectives and discuss how this allocation is logical and consistent with the offeror’s technical and management approaches."

J.1 (pages 254-257) Indicates that there are 4 SOOs:

- Execution

- Agility

- Sustainability

- Cost Effective However, the SOOs listed in J.11 - Budget Template seem to come from C.6 (Scope of PSA HIV Activities, page 252):

SOO Objective 1: Commodities Procurement SOO Objective 2: Commodities Delivery SOO Objective 3: End-to-End Visibility Could USAID please confirm which SOOs should be shown as budget allocations in J.11?

Please see Attachment J.11.

33 Original RFP, Page 222, L.7.3 Annex F: Draft Subcontracting and Small Business Plan (offerors must use the MS Excel template J.9 - the narrative not to exceed 10,000 characters).

The Excel Subcontracting and Small Business Plan template provided in the J attachments is listed as J.8 Subcontracting Plan Template.

Question: Can the government please confirm that the three references to J.9 are typos and J.8 was the intended template?

The numbering of attachments has been revised.

34 Original RFP, Page 222;

Section L.7.3 Annex E

RFP States, "Adobe Acrobat PDF or Microsoft Word and not to exceed 5 pages: 3 pages per resume, 1 page per narrative and 1 page for references)" Question: Can the government please provide additional instructions for the Narrative requirement (e.g., specific requirements, format instructions)?

The format of the narrative should address the information requested in Section L.7.3 as it pertains to Annex E.

35 Original RFP, Page 222;

Section L.7.3 Annex E

RFP States, "Adobe Acrobat PDF or Microsoft Word and not to exceed 5 pages: 3 pages per resume, 1 page per narrative and 1 page for references)" Question: Can the government please provide additional instructions for the References requirement? (i.e., how many references are required?)

Please refer to the instructions in Section L.7.3.

36 Original RFP, Page 221; L.7.3:

Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan

Section L asks for the Offeror's management approach but Section M focuses primarily on Staffing. Will the government please clarify how the management approach will be evaluated?

Please refer to the instructions in Section L.7.3.

37 Original RFP, Page 221; L.7.3:

Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan

Section L for Annex D states: This includes the management of subcontractors, including small business concerns, and their unique capabilities.

Question: Since Annex F is the Subcontracting and Small Business Plan, would the government consider moving this requirement to Annex F?

No.

38 Original RFP, Page 221; L.7.3:

Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan

Section L for Annex D States: It shall demonstrate an appropriate, effective, and efficient proposal with respect to the skills, expertise, and size of the staff and long-term consultants needed for the central office (HQ) and any proposed country/regional offices. The roles and responsibilities of staff and long-term consultants shall be defined.

Question: Since the roles and responsibilities consists of an extensive amount of material, No.

would the government consider moving this requirement into the non page restricted Org Chart requirement?

39 Original RFP, Page 221; L.7.3:

Factor 2: Management and Staffing Plan

Management and Staffing are critical components to the proposal and we believe should be allocated additional page count.

Would the Government consider allowing Offerors an additional 5 pages for the Annex D Management and Staffing?

No.

40 Original RFP, Page 218; L.7.3 Factor 1 Technical Approach Annex B QASP Page 245; M.4.1: Factor 1:

Technical Approach Annex B:

Draft QASP

Annex B states, "The draft plan must demonstrate the offeror’s internal monitoring system to ensure execution of the results in timely and quality products and services." The Government has instructed the Offeror to develop the PWS and QASP which outline the requirements for how the government will accomplish contract quality performance.

Question: Since Section L has no requirement to include the Offeror's internal quality monitoring system, would the Government consider adding additional pages for Offerors to explain their Quality Management Approach and/or Plan for this contract?

No.

41 Original RFP, Page 238, L.8.8 Part 8 - Information to

Part 8 - Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors states: "The Offeror must

The information to support a request for consent to subcontract is only required for major

Support Consent to Subcontractors address each of the elements in FAR 44.202-2 in order for each proposed subcontractor to be considered by the Contracting Officer to be granted with the initial award." Question - is it the Government's intent to provide consent upon award for all of the offeror's subcontractors or just those defined as Major Subcontractors?

subcontractors at the proposal stage. The CO will review all requests for consent to subcontract submitted with the proposal. If the information provided adequately supports the consent request, consent for that subcontractor will be granted at the time of award regardless of major/minor status.

42 Original RFP, Page. 223/267 (PDF p.225), Section L.7.4(a).

Page. 232/267 (PDF p.234), Section L.8.3(L)(ii) Page. 231/267 (PDF p.233), Section L.8.3(j)(iv)

Section L.7.4(a) defines a Major Subcontractor as 15% of prime offeror's total proposed costs.

However, Section L.8.3(L)(ii) defines a Major Subcontractor as one with a total value of $7.5M or more. Section L.8.3(j)(iv) also utilized the $7.5M Major Subcontractor threshold for a detailed Excel budget utilizing the J.11 template. These appear to be conflicting definitions of "Major Subcontractor" of 15%

vs. $7.5M. Can the government please clarify/reconcile this apparent conflict, or provide revised RFP verbiage as needed?

Please refer to Section L.8.3.l(ii) and Section L.8.3(j)(iv) which both define a major subcontractor at 15%.

43 RFP Amended; p213, L.7.2.C, Demo

To ensure there are no technical difficulties for the virtual ITS demonstration, would USAID please share the platform anticipated for use (e.g., Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, etc.)?

The Contracting Officer (CO) will notify each Offeror of the date and time scheduled for their demonstration, providing at least 14 calendar days’ advance notice. The notification will include the mandatory rules of engagement for the demonstration.

44 RFP Amended; p220, L.8.3.b, Commodity Cost Plug Figure

L.8.3.b states, “The plug figure(s) encompass a representative set of countries (see Attachment J.11 Budget Template, tab “Commodity Cost Plug Figure”) and includes the purchased cost of commodities and associated global logistics costs such as freight, warehousing, insurance, duties and customs.”

Does the warehousing cost, as part of the commodity cost plug figure, apply to both temporary warehousing as well as all warehousing costs related to managing a Regional Distribution Center?

Yes.

45 RFP amended; L.6.l, Use of Acronyms

Due to page limitations, please confirm we can use acronyms from the RFP (including Section C: Statement of Objectives and Section F:

Deliverables/Performance) that are not in the acronym list in our proposal.

If this is not a consideration, then Offeror asks that all acronyms are added from Sections C and F to the List of Acronyms on page 254.

Yes, this is acceptable.

46 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page Section L.7.2, Factor 1:

Technical Approach, Annex C and Page 236, Section M.4.1, Factor 1: Technical Approach, The instructions and evaluation criteria for Annex C both reference Section H.6 of the revised RFP. Section L says “The written plan shall include a description of how the ITS conducts the functions as described in Section

Yes, USAID confirms.

Annex C

H.6 Sharing of Operational Data with the NextGen Control Tower.” Section M says “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed ITS based on the Government’s confidence that the existing ITS platform is mature, stable, flexible, scalable, and function-fit as identified in Section H.6 Sharing of Operational Data With NextGen Control Tower.”

Can USAID please confirm that the functions being referred to in Sections L and M correspond to the 18 items listed under paragraph e) of H.6 only, and not to the other requirements listed in H.6?

Can USAID also please confirm that these functions are the same as the “business processes that pertain to the activities within the scope of this contract as described in Section H.6 Sharing of Operational Data With NextGen Control Tower?”

47 Revised RFP Amendment 2, Page 216, Section L.8.1, Organization of Cost/Price

Per the RFP, “the SF-33 and Parts 2-15 must be provided in a single integrated document.” In Section L.6(m)(5), the RFP also requires that “submissions per e-mail should not exceed

No. The instructions remain unchanged.

10MB in total file/data size.

We understand that USAID would prefer to keep the number of proposal email attachments to a minimum. However, to facilitate offerors providing comprehensive and clearly legible documentation to USAID as part of their cost proposal, while remaining within the 10 MB email size limit, would USAID please consider allowing offerors to submit SF- 33 and Parts 2-15 in multiple, clearly labelled, emails?

48 RFP Amendment 0002, Page 208, Sub-section L.6.l

On the “Use of Acronyms,” USAID stipulates that “Offerors are required to use the list of acronyms provided on pages 254-256 of this solicitation. No other acronyms shall be introduced in proposals.” However, this list omits common acronyms that USAID’s solicitation and templates use. For example, the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan template and solicitation use “AQL” as an acronym for “acceptable quality level,” but the list on pages 254-256 does not include “AQL.”

Additional acronyms that appear in the solicitation but not the list on pages 254-256 include “ARV,” “EPCIS,” “FY,” “GS1,” “OTD,” “PaaS,” “PO,” “PSM,” “RTK,” “SOP,” “VMI,”

Offerors may use acronyms that appear within the RFP, and are properly defined after first use within the applicable annex, but cannot include additional acronyms that do not appear within the RFP.

“VMMC,” and “VMS.” Permitting offerors to use these same common acronyms in their proposals will save space without compromising readability and, in some cases, will improve readability. As such, would USAID consider allowing offerors to use the following acronyms in their proposals in addition to the acronyms listed on pages 254-256 in Amendment 0002?

• AQL (for “acceptable quality level”)

• ARV (for “antiretroviral medicines”)

• EPCIS (for electronic code product information services)

• FY (for “fiscal year”)

• GS1 (for “Global Standard 1”)

• OTD (for “on-time delivery”)

• PaaS (for “Procurement as a Service”)

• PO (for “purchase order”)

• PSM (for “Procurement and Supply Management”)

• RTK (for “rapid test kit”)

• SOP (for “standard operating procedure”)

• VMI (for “vendor managed inventory”)

• VMMC (for “voluntary medical male circumcision”)

• VMS (for “vendor managed solution”)

49 RFP Amendment 0002, Section L.8 now stipulates that “offerors must The decision to remove the ceiling is at the

Questions and Answers, Page 224, Sub-section L.8.3, Part(l)(iv); page 10, Answer to Question 36 propose ceilings for all indirect costs for the prime and all major subcontractors.” Although we understand that it is common for USAID contractors to offer ceilings on some rates to enhance their competitiveness, our understanding is that the government may only require indirect rate ceilings when the conditions of FAR 42.707(b) are met. We believe that most established USAID contractors will not meet the regulatory conditions for government-mandated indirect rate ceilings. Further, the establishment of some indirect cost rates, such as those for payment of fringe benefits, are subject to legally mandated labor requirements and are outside of the contractor’s direct control.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that USAID remove the above-mentioned requirement under Sub-section L.8.3 – Part 2(l)(iv) requiring offerors to propose ceilings for all indirect costs. Should USAID wish to maintain the requirement for indirect rate ceilings if an offeror does not meet the conditions of FAR 42.707(b), we respectfully request that this requirement be withheld for such offerors at the competitive range stage.

discretion of the CO. This provision does not mandate the removal of the ceiling merely because an Offeror has a NICRA. At this time, the instructions remain unchanged.

50 Questions and Answers, Page Could USAID kindly add the following to the list Offerors may use acronyms that appear within

35, Question 129, referencing original RFP pages 216-224, Sub-section L.7; pages 265- 267, List of Acronyms of allowable acronyms:

ARV: Antiretroviral CQI: Continuous quality improvement EPCIS: Electronic Product Code Information Services GS1: Global Standards 1 HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus HIV/AIDS: Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) PaaS: Procurement as a Service PO: Purchase order RFP: Request for proposals RO: Requisition order SLA: Service-level agreement VMI: Vendor-managed Inventory the RFP, and are properly defined after first use within the applicable annex, but cannot include additional acronyms that do not appear within the RFP.

51 RFP Amendment 0002, Questions and Answers, Page 50, Answer to Question 168

USAID clarified that offers should not include estimates in attachments J.8 and J.9 that consider the use of U.S. small business subcontractors for costs included in the commodities plug figure. Based on our experience, many U.S. small businesses play a vital role in the provision of global logistics services, which are costs that will largely be allocated through the commodity plug figure.

Incentivizing offerors to use small businesses

Please follow the instructions as stated in Attachments J.8 and Attachment J.9.

for global logistics services under this award by including them in the award targets and reporting will substantially support USAID’s small business subcontracting objectives and goals. Not doing so would also represent a departure from the current reporting practice on USAID’s GHSC-PSM program. As such, we kindly request that USAID reconsider allowing offerors to include the use of small business through the commodity plug figure in J.8 and J.9.

52 P. 208 L.6(1) l Would it be possible to include the following acronyms and in the acronym list on pages 254-256?:

● 3PL – Third-party Logistics Provider

● 4PL – Fourth-party Logistics Provider

● AI – Artificial Intelligence

● AIDS – Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome

● AMC – Annual Maintenance Contract

● API – Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient

● App – Application

● B - Billion

● COVID – CoronaVirus

● ARV – Antiretroviral

● DAP – Delivery at Place

● DDP – Delivery Duty Paid

Offerors may use acronyms that are included in the RFP, and are properly defined after first use within the applicable annex, but cannot include the RFP.

● ESG – Environmental, Social, and Governance

● EPCIS – Electronic Product Code Information Services

● ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning

● FASP – Forecasting & Supply Planning

● FP – Family Planning

● FY – Fiscal Year

● GF – The Global Fund

● GHSC-PSM – Global Health Supply Chain Program - Procurement and Supply Management

● GTIN – Global Trade Item Number

● HIV – Human Immunodeficiency Virus

● IT – Information Technology

● M – Million

● MOH – Ministry of Health

● MTCT – Mother-to-child Transmission

● NDRA – National Drug Regulatory Authorities

● NGO – Non-governmental Organization

● OI – Opportunistic Infection

● OTD – On-time Delivery

● PaaS – Procurement as a Service

● PI – Performance Indicator

● PPM – Pooled Procurement Mechanism

● PreP – Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis

● PS – Performance Standard

● QMS – Quality Management System

● RFI – Request for Information

● RTK – Rapid Test Kit

● SGTIN – Serial Global Trade Item Number

● TB – Tuberculosis

● TCO – Total Cost of Ownership

● TLC – Total Landed Cost

● TLD – Tenofovir, Lamivudine, and Dolutegravir

● UNAIDS – Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids

● UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund

● UNFPA – United Nations Population Fund

● VMI – Vendor Managed Inventory

● VMMC – Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision

● VMS – Vendor Managed Solution/System WHO – World Health Organization

53 P. 208 L.6(1) l If Offerors define organizational name acronyms in the application (such as bidders and partners), could organizational name acronyms be used throughout the proposal?

Yes.

The provided QASP template, table of deliverables, and list of Performance Standards include the following acronyms that do not appear on the list of acronyms on pages 254-

Offerors may use acronyms that are included in the RFP, and are properly defined after first use within the applicable annex, but cannot include

256; can these acronyms be added to this list?

● QC - quality control

● QA – quality assurance

● AQL – acceptable quality level

● MIS – management information systems

● PaaS – procurement as a service

● POC – point of contact

● OTD – on-time delivery

● CPARS – Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System

● US – United States

● i.e. – id est

● AIDS – Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

● FY – fiscal year TBD – to be determined the RFP.

55 L.8.2.d (Page 218), L.8.2.g.v (Page 219), L.8.3.j.i. (Page 222), and L.8.3.j.iv (Page 223)

The first three references indicate that a detailed budget is required for all subcontractors, while the fourth references that a detailed budget is required for subcontractors whose “value is equal to or exceeds 15% of the prime offeror's total proposed costs” e.g. major subcontractors.

Can USAID clarify if a detailed Excel budget and Word Narrative are required for all

All proposed sub-offerors whose 10-year total subcontract value is equal to or exceeds 15% of the prime offeror’s total proposed costs, must submit a budget, using the Excel budget template and associated narrative as stated in Section L.8j.iv.

subcontractors or just major subcontractors?

56 Responses to Questions, Page 45, #161 The RFP states: “The Prime Offeror’s budget narrative must include the prime’s documented cost and price analysis of proposed subcontractor pricing.”

In response to a question as to whether this analysis can be included in the Consent to

Subcontract Section, USAID responded “The prime Offeror’s analysis of subcontractor pricing must be contained as an annex to the

Prime Offeror’s Budget Narrative.”

Can USAID confirm that “Part 8-Information to Support Consent to Subcontract” is considered an Annex to the Budget Narrative, and the analysis can be included in Part 8?

Yes.

57 Page 208, L.6 l) Use of Acronyms

Section L.6 l) states: "Use of Acronyms:

Offerors are required to use the list of acronyms provided on pages 254-256 of this solicitation. No other acronyms shall be introduced in proposals."

Please confirm that this restriction does not

This restriction does not include acronyms used in legal names of companies.

include acronyms used in legal names of companies such as ABC, Inc., XYZ Services, LLC., or TBD, LLC., and that the shortened, typically recognized, version of the name is allowed - ABC, Inc. (ABC), XYZ Services, LLC.

(XYZ), or TBD, LLC. (TBD), 58 Page 208, L.6 l) Use of Acronyms

Section L.6 l) states: "Use of Acronyms:

Offerors are required to use the list of acronyms provided on pages 254-256 of this solicitation. No other acronyms shall be introduced in proposals."

Logos are commonly used in graphics. Please confirm that this restriction does not include acronyms used in a company or product's legally recognized logo.

This restriction does not include acronyms used in a company or product’s legally recognized logo.

59 Page 208, L.6 l) Use of Acronyms

Section L.6 l) states: "Use of Acronyms:

Offerors are required to use the list of acronyms provided on pages 254-256 of this solicitation. No other acronyms shall be introduced in proposals."

Please confirm that this restriction does not include acronyms used in products or applications legal name (e.g., SAP or an ISO

Yes, it is confirmed that this restriction does not include acronyms used in products or applications legal names.

certification).

60 Page 208, L.6 l) Use of Acronyms

Section L.6 l) states: "Use of Acronyms:

Offerors are required to use the list of acronyms provided on pages 254-256 of this solicitation. No other acronyms shall be introduced in proposals."

Can the government please allow offerors to use any acronyms used throughout all of the RFP documents but not included in the list of acronyms provided on pages 254-256 of the solicitation (e.g., HIV, ARV, AQL, PaaS, CLA, CLIN, EPCIS, GS1, GTIN, SGTIN, FFP, CPFF, VAT, R&R, T&M, SB, SDB, WOSB, VOSB, SDVSB, VMI, VMS, etc.)

Offerors may use acronyms that are included in the RFP, and are properly defined after first use within the applicable annex, but cannot include additional acronyms that do not appear within the RFP.

61 Pg 217 and Pg 229; Government Updated the Title for Part 8 on

pg. 217 to read: Part 8 - Information to Support Consent to Subcontract, However, on Pg. 229 L.8.9, Part 8 title was left as is was previously listed: Part 8 - Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors

Will the government please confirm which is the correct title for Part 8 of the Cost/Price

Consent to Subcontract is correct for the purposes of this RFP.

volume?

62 Pg. 217; Section L.8.2, subsection b) and Pg. 220;

Section L.8.3, subsection (b)

In accordance with Section L.8.2(b) and L.8.3(b), the commodity plug number is provided “to ensure budget assumptions uniformly” and “do not apply to any other section of this solicitation”, and is also for “pricing and evaluation purposes”. Please confirm if offerors are to include this commodity plug number in the L.8.2(g)(1) Tab- Section B summary by CLIN.

The budget template formulas already take the plug figure into account in Tab-Section B summary by CLIN.

63 Pg. 218; Section L.8.2, subsection (g)(i)

Reference: L.8.2(g)(i): The value of the total estimated cost plus all the maximum fees is $5 billion as stated in Section B.3 a) of the solicitation. The amount of the cost commodity plug number is $486,700,000 which is 97% of the total estimated cost plus all the maximum fees. Is the Offeror required to propose its total estimated cost plus all the maximum fees (including cost commodity plug number for CLIN 0003), at or below the $5 billion stated in B.3?

The total estimated cost remains unchanged.

The total estimated ceiling value will be confirmed upon the completion of the source selection process.

Please see instructions under Section L.8.3 regarding the purpose of the plug figure, and that it does not inform any other section of the

RFP.

Section M

64 Original RFP, Page 246; M.4.1:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Annex D states: The roles and responsibilities of key personnel are matched with the skills

The evaluation criteria in Section M.4.2 of the RFP specifies how Annex D will be evaluated.

Annex D and expertise needed to support the core functions proposed... This includes the appropriateness of qualifications for staffing… Question: Can the government please clarify how it intends to evaluate/score "skills and expertise"?

65 Pg 236, M.4.2 Factor 2, Annex D

“The evaluation includes the appropriateness of qualifications for staffing, realism of staffing footprint required to meet contract objectives, and the extent to which the proposed overall management approach supports client needs.

Key Personnel’s roles and responsibilities are aligned with the required skills and expertise needed to support the core functions proposed.”

Can the Government please clarify how the "appropriateness of qualifications for staffing" and how the "Key Personnel’s roles and responsibilities are aligned with the required skills and expertise needed to support the core functions proposed" will be evaluated when there are no required qualifications, skills, or expertise listed in the RFP? (i.e. what would it take to get a "High Confidence"? Will the government evaluate years of experience in

Please refer to Section M.4.2 for clarification for how proposals will be evaluated.

lieu of a degree with less confidence than a Masters degree?)