Questions and Answers RFP 7200AA22R00083_compiled.pdf

Questions and Answers to RFP 7200AA22R00083

There were quite a few duplicate questions. To avoid redundancies, USAID answered once and removed duplicate questions.

GENERAL:

Procurement History

1. Is the Contracting Office able to confirm whether or not the subject acquisition is considered a new requirement or a follow-on effort? If the latter, can you please provide the incumbent contract and/or task order number?

Answer: This is a new requirement. There is no incumbent contract or task order.

Period of Performance/Start Date

2. Can USAID confirm when it expects to award LGHS?

Answer: At this time we anticipate awarding LGHS on or around July 2023. Please continue monitoring USAID’s Business Forecast for updates.

3. F.2. Performance Period, page 30. In this section the start and end dates of the performance period are currently “TBD”. Will this section be updated to provide an estimated start and end date? If not, are Offerors expected to choose expected start and end dates on which to base their proposals?

Answer: The specific period of performance dates will be determined at the time of award.

4. On page 8, Section B.4- Budget, In the table, could USAID please confirm the Base

Period is for two years with three (3) option years one year each?

Answer: The RFP has been amended. The base year is now 4 years with one (1) option year.

Various

5. Would USAID consider making this procurement’s geographic code 935 given its global nature?

Answer: USAID doesn’t anticipate the need of procuring supplies or services that fall outside of geographic code 937 (see ADS 310.3.1.1) at this time. If such need arises post-award, individual requests will be handled post-award in accordance with AIDAR 752.225-70.

6. Closing Date. Given that the proposal development period covers a holiday, would

USAID consider providing an extension?

Answer: The deadline was extended to December 16th, 2022. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

Proposal Instructions

7. Please confirm that section headers within the proposal can be in a font other than Times New Roman, to improve readability for proposal evaluators by more clearly distinguishing among the different sections.

Answer: Yes.

8. Section L. 5 (g) on page 124 states that offerors must complete Standard Form 33, Blocks 12 through 16, but Section L.8 on page 130 says offerors must complete Standard Form 33 blocks 15A through 18. Can USAID confirm which blocks on SF 33 must be completed?

Answer: Block 12-18, the RFP has been amended accordingly.

9. L7, Pg. 129. Could USAID confirm if there should be 3-5 PPRs for all partners or for each partner?

Answer: Yes. The Offeror must list in the Past Performance Information Form three

(3) to Five (5) most recent relevant contracts or assistance awards for itself and each major subcontractor, as defined in RFP .

10. Page 127, 132, Section L.8. Page 127 of the RFP specifies the Key Personnel letters of commitment need to be provided in the annex of the technical volume. However, Section L cost proposal instructions, under Part 11 requires that Key Personnel letters of commitment be submitted along with the Biographical Data Sheets in the Cost Volume. Please confirm if the Key Personnel letters of commitment belong in the Technical or Cost Volume?

Answer: Letters of Commitment are part of the technical volume. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

11. Page 131, Section L.8 Part 2 1.b. Can USAID please clarify if Biographical Data Sheets are required for all named personnel, as indicated in Section L.8 Part 2 1.b on page 131 of the RFP or for key personnel only, as indicated in Section L.8 Part 11 on page 136?

Answer: For Key Personnel only, the RFP has been amended accordingly.

12. Page 135, Section L.8, Part III. Part III of this Section requires that Section K be submitted by the Prime Offeror and all subcontractors. Would USAID allow Section K to be submitted by major subcontractors only?

Answer: All proposed named subcontractors must have active SAM.registration and are required to submit all “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors” as required in Section K, except for those that are not available online.

13. Can USAID confirm that only the prime offeror needs to complete L.8, “Part 10:

Portions of Section K not Available Online”?

Answer: Yes. Only prime offeror has to submit portions of Section K not Available Online

14. L.8 Instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal, Part 10: Portions of Section K not Available Online, page 136: Please elaborate on what sections of Section K are not available online or provide offerors with them.

Answer: Sections K.15-18 are not available online.

15. Section L.7.1. “Cover Page,” page 127, calls for the cover page to list, “subcontractor numbers.” Does this mean a subcontractor’s UEI number?

16. L.8.part 7. Letters of Commitment (Major Subcontractors), page 136. Please confirm that letters of commitment are only required of major subcontractors, as indicated in Part 7 heading, and not every subcontractor on the proposal.

Answer: Correct, letters of commitment are required from major subcontractors only.

17. L.8.part 8. Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors, page 136. Major subcontractors are defined in this solicitation as “those subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.” Would USAID consider also defining major subcontractor as a contractor with a significant technical scope of work.?

Answer: No, only for major subcontractors as defined in the RFP.

18. L.8. Part 8 – Information to Support Consent to Major Subcontractors (page 136):

● May offerors include information to support consent for non-major subcontractors in order to facilitate a quicker start-up?

Answer: The information is required only for major subcontractors.

19. Can USAID confirm that only the prime offeror needs to complete L.8, “Part 12:

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” Attachment J.6?

Answer: This is required for prime and major subcontractors.

Authorized Work Week

20. On page 31, Section F.5- Authorized Workday/Week, Would USAID consider allowing a six-day workweek for STTA to be authorized only on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the Contracting Officer?

Answer: Yes. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

TECHNICAL:

Website/Dashboard

The website described in the RFP is a public facing website with general project information. The dashboard is intended to be an internal project management tool for USAID and the Contractor to monitor the progress of the grants and grantee organizational capacity improvements. The dashboard should not be accessible to the public. Neither the website nor the dashboard are intended to exist beyond the implementation period of LGHS.

21. Since the dashboards need to be delivered via a web-based platform, will that platform need to be FedRamp ready and will an ATO be required before launch?

Answer: Information Technology specifications will be determined post award with

USAID.

22. How many users will need access the dashboard, or will this be a publicly available dashable for the entire world to see?

Answer: Number of users to be determined between the Contractor and USAID. Please see the dashboard description above.

23. Under Section C, Objective 3, the RFP states on page 23 that, “Within one year of award, the Contractor must complete the initial design and launch of the webpage.”

Does USAID expect the Contractor to purchase a website domain, or will we be adding pages to an existing website?

Answer: The Contractor is expected to create and maintain its own project website.

24. The RFP notes that the Contractor will develop the website (Section 3, Objective 3).

Who will manage ongoing operation of the site and all of the related components?

Answer: The Contractor will manage the website.

25. The RFP states The Contractor shall develop a web-based, user-friendly, and interactive organizational capacity dashboard accessible to each local organization awarded and USAID. Question: Does the USAID have an existing platform or type of dashboard it prefers?

Answer: No.

26. Knowledge Management tasks noted in the RFP’s Section C, Objective 3 (page 23) include a requirement for a resource portal, a communication and networking platform, and an information center and interface. In addition, the RFP requires an organizational capacity dashboard to measure and evaluate the performance of the grantees. Will all of these components be integrated into the website?

27. Objective 3-C. Website development: In what language(s) will the website pages need to be available?

Answer: Languages beyond English are to be determined post-award, as appropriate.

28. Objective 3-C. Website development: Will USAID mandate the development platform/CMS (e.g. Drupal) to be used or is it to be proposed by the Contractor? Will the website be developed as part of an existing website or hosting framework (inside USG firewall or not), or can/will it be a completely new and/or independent (from USG infrastructure) built by the Contractor? If there will be interaction or interoperability with existing USG infrastructure and/or websites, please provide additional details on associated requirements.

Answer: This will be a new website. There will not be any interaction with existing USG infrastructure.

GUCs

29. C4, Pg. 18. Can USAID confirm that all grants should be awarded by Year 3 of the project?

Answer: Confirmed. All grants should be issued within the first 3 years.

30. Page 22, in section C.4.6, USAID stated: “A core component of the LGHS contract is to create pathways to ensure local entities contributing to the advancing health security in their countries are connected to wider national, regional and global efforts”

● Are there limitations on awarding funding to regional bodies? If it is bi-lateral funding, will it need to be focused on a specific country?

Answer: Regional bodies are not eligible for funding.

31. Page 70, Section H.28. Would USAID confirm that parastatals and quasi-governmental entities, including universities would be eligible to receive grant awards under the LGHS GUC program and be subject to ADS 303 requirements?

Answer: USAID does not envision grants being given to parastatals, quasi-governmental entities, and universities.

32. Page 70, Section H.28. If a grant applicant’s programmatic activity calls for the issuance of lower-tier grants (allowable under FAA and Standard Grants), would USAID allow that lower-tier grants to be issued under LGHS?

Answer: USAID does not envision lower-tier grants.

33. What is the expected length of grants, and approximately when does USAID intend to make a determination on option years?

Answer: Duration of grants will depend on the work involved but no grants will be more than three (3) years. Option year will be determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award.

34. We are unclear on the precise breakdown in the project between grants and capacity building to and for local entities, vs direct technical assistance and technical implementation in the six GHSA technical areas described in the RFP’s Section C.4.3., pages 14-17. Our questions:

a) Does USAID view LGHS as primarily a grants and capacity building program with only limited technical assistance?

b) Does USAID view LGHS as a grants and capacity building program with any technical assistance from the Contractor directed to grantees only?

Answer: In very limited instances the Contractor will be directed to provide technical assistance to any organization beyond the grantees. For the purposes of the proposal, please assume that technical assistance and capacity building is directed to the grantees.

c) Is LGHS technical assistance intended to be technical capacity building only, in the six GHSA technical areas?

d) Will the technical assistance or technical support in the six GHSA technical areas be conducted primarily by LGHS grantees, with the Contractor’s support? Or will the Contractor be providing direct technical assistance in the target countries?

Answer: Please see answer b.

35. On page 17 of the RFP, within C.4.4. Objective 1, the first paragraph notes that the contractor is expected to include provisions for in-kind grants.

a) Does USAID anticipate that grants to government will be authorized or expected under this project?

Answer: No. RFP has been amended accordingly.

b) The ADS no longer includes “in-kind grants” as a formal grant type, while acknowledging that goods may still be provided through “direct distribution.” If the contractor is expected to procure and disposition goods as part of the grants approach, can the GUC total be reduced by the amount of that assumption (and accommodated in the ODCs section of the budget), or will in-kind donations “count” against the GUC total?

Answer: In-kind grants and direct distribution of goods and services are not envisioned under LGHS.

36. On page 20 of the RFP, within C.4.5. Objective 2, Section C notes that “the contractor shall provide organizational capacity support to the local entities in countries where grants are implemented.” Can USAID clarify whether those local entities are grantees, or other local global health security actors?

Answer: The local entities are the grantees.

37. Under Section C, Objective 1, the RFP on pages 18-19 notes that the pre-solicitation landscape report for each country is due 30 calendar days after grants are awarded.

Does this mean that USAID does not need to review the list of possible local organizations prior to the project issuing grants?

Answer: The landscape report draft that includes a list of possible organizations is due before grants are awarded. Please see section F.

38. F7, Pg.33. It states the following:

The Contractor will conduct an organizational capacity assessment and develop a planned package of support that can be delivered to each local entity in person and remotely. The organizational support plans for each entity, including annual assessments of progress, must be shared with USAID and the grantee no later than 90 calendar days after awarding a grant to a local organization using the NUPAS.

● Could USAID clarify this statement? Does USAID intend that the offeror use

NUPAS as part of the selection process for GUCs? Or use NUPAS to conduct the organizational capacity assessment?

Answer: No, USAID does not intend for the Contractor to use NUPAS as a part of the grantee selection process. The NUPAS tool is intended to be a metric to be used by the Contractor to track progress through the life of the grant/capacity building.

39. 1A and C.5. Grantee reporting and submissions: In English only or also accepted in other languages?

Answer: All reports submitted to USAID must be in English.

40. Under C..4.3., are the examples of illustrative activities that serve to improve JEEs scores in each country/region meant for grantees to carry out or for the Contractor to carry out as a complement to grantmaking?

Answer: Meant for grantees.

USAID-approved Technical Assistance

41. C4, Pgs. 19-20. Can USAID clarify how the USAID-Approved Technical Assistance (C.4.4.B) differs from C.4.5. Technical Support? Is the Objective 2 Technical Support provided directly to the grantee whereas the Objective 1 Technical Assistance is to other parties? More information to help differentiate between these two tasks would be helpful.

Answer: Technical Support is for grantees only. Technical Assistance may be provided in limited circumstances to other organizations as directed by USAID.

42. In the RFP’s Section C, both Objective 1 and Objective 2 call for the proposal to address technical assistance and technical support to grant recipients. Under Objective 1, the relevant section is, “B. USAID-Approved Technical Assistance” (page 19).

Under Objective 2, the relevant section is, “B. Provide technical support to grant recipients” (page 20). Our questions:

a) Where should our proposal address the six GHSA technical focus areas?

Answer: In the illustrative staffing plan to demonstrate the Offeror's ability to access technical expertise across the GHS technical areas.

Focus Countries/Geographic Area

43. Given the emphasis on localization, does USAID prefer the project team be based in one of the target countries or in the Washington, DC area?

Answer: It is up to the Offerors’ to propose a management plan that demonstrates understanding of the needs of LGHS based on parameters provided within the RFP and will lead to successful implementation. Please see Section C and Section L.8 of the amended RFP.

44. The RFP notes that there is no requirement to have an office in every focus country

(Section C, page 18). Would USAID like to see a regional model to reflect activities across various sub-regions of Africa and Asia?

Answer: Please see answer to question 43.

45. On page 18, Section C.4.4- Objective 1, Would USAID be able to provide the complete list of intensive focus countries that will potentially be covered under the LGHS contract?

Answer: GHS intensive focus countries are listed below, however, USAID does not anticipate LGHS activities in all of the listed below countries.

1. Bangladesh

2. Burkina Faso

3. Cameroon

4. Côte d'Ivoire

5. Democratic Republic of the Congo

6. Ethiopia

7. Ghana

8. Guatemala

9. Guinea

10. India

11. Indonesia

12. Kenya

13. Liberia

14. Mali

15. Mozambique

16. Nigeria

17. Pakistan

18. Philippines

19. Senegal

20. Sierra Leone

21. Tanzania

22. Uganda

23. Ukraine

24. Vietnam

25. Zambia

46. Will ORB approval be required for survey instruments deployed in the focus nations?

Answer: USAID doesn’t understand what ORB refers to.

47. As three of the seven anticipated initial countries require some French, is there a preference to have French speakers among Key Personnel?

Answer: Key Personnel must meet the minimum requirements in the RFP.

48. C.4.6, Objective 3, page 24. For convening partner meetings, it states the contractor must convene two meetings held regionally, does this mean two meetings total (i.e.:

one in Africa and one in Asia), or two rounds of meetings with each round having regional occurrences?

Answer: Two meetings total. Locations to be determined in consultation with USAID.

49. C.4.6, Objective 3, page 22. The RFP refers to developing a process for measuring sub-national capacities, in alignment with Joint External Evaluation (JEE 3.0). This requires considerable buy-in and coordination with national level government, WHO and others for subnational plans to dovetail with existing NAPHS. Has USAID consulted WHO on the development of subnational action plans? Is the contractor expected to support the local government to develop subnational plans in every region in each country, or just those where there is grant implementation?

Answer: No, USAID has not consulted WHO on development of subnational plans.

The Contractor is not expected to engage local governments to develop subnational plans. The intent is for LGHS to document subnational contributions against JEE indicators at national level.

50. C.2. Are any of the completed WHO’s JEE for the USAID focus countries available and will be shared to ensure more targeted proposals? According to the WHO website, 116 countries have the JEE.

Answer: Please see the link https://extranet.who.int/sph/jee

51. C.4.4 Objective 1, page 17-18: The RFP indicates that “During the first year of implementation, USAID anticipates that focus countries will include Cameroon, Guinea, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Vietnam.”

a) Are these confirmed and have there been negotiations between USAID/Washington and the USAID Mission and national governments in these countries?

b) Beyond these countries, are there specific countries or regions that are eligible/ineligible or prioritized for support?

c) Are these countries considered to be the first “round” of grants as referenced on page

18, meaning that there should be 15-30 grants across the 7 countries?

Answer: For questions 51 a)-c): Offerors should use this list for proposal purposes.

Final country selection will be made in consultation with USAID after the award.

Prioritized Technical Areas

52. C2, Pg. 12 and C4, Pg. 14. On Pg. 12, it states the following:

https://extranet.who.int/sph/jee

The JEE (version 3.0) currently includes 19 core health security technical areas, and USAID has prioritized strengthening the following eight: antimicrobial resistance (AMR), infection prevention and control, zoonotic disease, national laboratory systems, surveillance, human resources/workforce development, emergency preparedness, and risk communication and community engagement.

On Pg. 14, it states the following: “USAID’s global health security programs have and will continue to prioritize 6 of the GHSA technical areas as noted above.”

● Could USAID confirm that surveillance and emergency preparedness are not among the priority technical areas at least for LGHS?

Answer: For the purpose of LGHS, there are six priority technical areas and two other areas as detailed in Section C.4.3. This Section has been changed for clarity in the amended RFP from “other priority areas” to “other areas” .

RFP has been amended accordingly.

53. Page 22, Section C.4.6. Will USAID dictate the sub-national priority geographic areas in each country or would the contractor be expected to select the sub-national priority areas in the prioritization process of technical areas?

Answer: The Contractor will make recommendations based on its knowledge of the country and landscape analysis, and the final decisions will be approved by USAID.

54. C.4.3. For the focus area on diagnostic and laboratory systems: will LGHS only focus on private sector diagnostic and lab systems at the subnational level?

Answer: GUCs are not envisioned to be granted to government entities; however, non-governmental local organizations may be issued grants to support public and/or private lab systems at the subnational level.

MEL/Indicators

55. C5, Pg. 24. It states, “Required Indicators included, but are not limited to the following. …” Does USAID plan to provide required indicators?

Answer: USAID will not be providing required indicators. RFP has been amended to remove and references to required indicators.

56. Page 24, Section C.5. Could USAID clarify if the MEL Plan included at the proposal stage is preliminary and that the winner will have time to further refine with countries once awarded to ensure it is driven by local priorities?

Answer: Yes. Please see section F.7.1.

57. How will USAID’s localization targets (for example, 50% of programming led by local organizations) be reflected in the monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan, project workplans, and others?

Answer: The 50% localization target is an Agency-wide target. No specific localization targets to be included in the listed above plans.

Plans/Reports/Tasks

58. C6, Pg. 26. USAID states that the Gender Action Plan should be finalized within 120 days of award. On Pg. 33, USAID states that it is due 60 days after award and then must be finalized 15 days after receiving comments. We request that USAID consider changing Section F to match the 120 days. In our experience, to conduct a gender analysis and then develop a thorough gender action plan requires more time than 60 days, especially at the launch of the project.

Answer: The Gender Action plan shall be finalized within 120 days of award. Section F of the RFP has been amended accordingly.

59. Organizational capacity dashboard, page 21: The RFP states “The dashboards must be shared with USAID no later than 60 calendar days after the capacity assessment and support plans are completed.” Does the support plan being completed refer to the plan being developed, or rather to it being fully implemented?

Answer: Developed. RFP has been amended accordingly.

60. Convene LGHS Capacity Building Workshops (Partners Meetings), page 24: Do these meetings need to be in-person, or could they be virtual or hybrid?

Answer: In person or hybrid.

Section L: Proposals Instructions

61. L7, Pg.128. Could USAID confirm that the MEL Plan should be included within the 20-page limit as part of the main body of the proposal and not in a separate annex?

Answer: The MEL Plan shall be an annex. RFP has been amended accordingly.

62. L7, Pg.128. Could USAID confirm if the Annex A. Implementation Timetable covers only Year One of the project?

63. L7, Pg. 128-129, In both L.7.6 Management Plan and L.7.7 Staffing Plan, USAID asks for information about the roles and responsibilities of subcontractors. To streamline the response, could USAID ask for this information in only one of these sections?

64. The RFP’s instructions for the Technical Approach (Section L.7.5., page 128) call for the inclusion of a MEL plan. What level of detail is expected for the Technical Approach’s MEL plan? As MEL plans can often be extensive in page length, could the MEL plan be included as an annex?

Answer: Per Section L.7.5- Technical Approach, the RFP states, “The proposal must include a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) plan that clearly indicates the results to be achieved during the life of the activity, proposes sensible performance indicators for each objective (including relevant output/outcome indicators and targets), and outlines a process for integrating learning into activity implementation.” The MEL is to be submitted as an Annex. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

RFP Section M

65. M.2 – Technical Evaluation Criteria (page 139):

● Please clarify if the MEL plan and approach to the Gender Action Plan will be scored as part of the offeror’s technical approach.

Answer: Yes, the MEL plan and the approach to the Gender Action plan will be evaluated as part of the technical approach.

66. Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria, Evaluation Factor 2: Management Plan (page 140) begins to state that "USAID will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's management plan demonstrates the Offeror's readiness and capability…". However, the phrase is incomplete. Could USAID please further clarify this phrase so that Offerors can ensure adherence to this Factor?

Answer: The section has been changed to read:

“USAID will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s management plan demonstrates the Offeror’s readiness and capability to facilitate effective and efficient management to successfully accomplish all aspects of project implementation that will achieve the objectives and purpose of the contract.”

Staffing/LOE

67. Does USAID expect the Key personnel to be US citizens/residents? Does USAID expect them to be located stateside.

Answer: The Offeror shall provide Key personnel that meet the criteria put forth in the

RFP.

68. Section C.4.4 – Objective 1 (page 18, last sentence of second full paragraph): The RFP states, “It is neither required nor expected that the contractor will have field offices in every focus country identified by USAID.”

a) Can USAID please share its vision for staffing at the country level?

Answer: Staffing shall be based on the Offeror’s technical approach.

b) Can USAID please describe the role USAID Missions will play in LGHS as compared to USAID-W?

Answer: Contractual management for LGHS will be with USAID/W. USAID Missions will provide technical direction and country-level coordination.

69. C.4.4. Objective 1. Will USAID give an indication of the geographic LOE required?

E.g., the initial list of 7 countries on page 18 has one in Asia (Vietnam); Knowing the relative weights for LOE by region will lead to more accurate proposed costing. Will USAID give a proposed weight for SSA, Asia, LAC?

Answer: LOE will not be provided. Please see revised cost instructions in the amended

RFP.

Funding

70. C.4.6 Objective 3. Will there be core funding for expanding global knowledge and other cross cutting learning activities?

Answer: Funding streams for LGHS will be decided within USAID.

71. C.4.2 Contractor’s Roles, page 14: The RFP indicates that this contract will “address gaps in global health security at the sub-national level.” Does this mean that national-level activities are not anticipated and would not be eligible for funding?

Answer: The intent of LGHS is to extend beyond the national-level to show impact at sub-national levels.

72. Does USAID anticipate that the project will receive a combination of field and core funding? If so what percentage is estimated to be core funding?

Answer: Funding streams for LGHS will be decided within USAID.

Various

73. Section C.4.3 – Description of Functional Activities and Tasks (page 14): The RFP states: “The USAID COR, LGHS management team, and USAID Missions will pre-identify 2 to 3 technical areas for each country.”

● Please clarify who is included in the term “LGHS management team.”

Answer: LGHS management team is the USAID project management team working with the USAID COR.

74. Objective 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3D. Capacity Strengthening, TA support, and workshops: In

English only or also to be provided in other languages? Which one(s)?

Answer: English or the language appropriate for each country.

75. C.2. Is the current ADS302 Local competition authority pilot program present in all

GHSA countries?

76. C2. Given the definition of entity does not include public sector entities, how will

LGHS address the gaps in the public sector at the subnational level? Will G2G be an element of this project? (See above #12 – same idea – asking about complementary programming undertaken by USAID with public sector such as G2G)?

Answer: G2G is not anticipated in LGHS. Any support to the public sector will be via technical assistance or through the GUCs to non-governmental local organizations.

COST:

Budget Ceiling

77. Would USAID consider providing a budget ceiling for the project given the lack of certainty about the number of countries buying in?

Answer: Please review USAID business forecast for estimated range for this procurement.

78. Funding ceiling, page IEE: The IEE, which is dated 2021, indicates that the overall funding ceiling is $90 million. Is this still the expectation? If so, can USAID confirm that this is for this contract only.

Answer: Please refer to the USAID business forecast with revised estimated range.

LOE/Plug Numbers

79. F8, Pg.40. It states the following: “The Contractor will supply the following level of effort (shown in person days) for the performance of this activity, including Option Years.” Does USAID plan to provide the level of effort?

Answer: Offerors must propose LOE based on their technical approach.

80. Given the illustrative nature of the tasks and activities of Section C, we are concerned that without detailed guidelines for the Cost proposal around level of effort and cost elements like international travel and ODCs there will not be an “apples to apples” approach to pricing amongst all Offerors. Could USAID provide more details around its assumptions on LOE, travel and other major line items so there is greater consistency between the Offerors bids? Would USAID consider providing a travel plug figure since the total beneficiary countries is still be determined?

Answer: Offerors must propose LOE and its estimation for other categories based on their technical approach. More information on assumptions has been provided in the revised cost instructions in section L.8 of the amended RFP.

81. Attachment J.4 Budget Template, “LOE” tab. The LOE tab of the budget template is currently blank. Does this mean Offerors are expected to format their own level of effort tables, or will there be an update to Attachment J.4 which will include an LOE table for Offerors to fill in? Or, should Offerors use the Level of Effort table from section F.8?

Answer: Table F.8 format should be used to propose LOE.

82. F.8, LOE, page 40. The RFP states that the number of LOE for any labor category may not be used in any other labor category, but also that the Contractor may adjust the LOE actually employed. Can USAID provide a range at which the LOE may be shifted between categories without prior approval?

Answer: It is subject to CO approval.

83. Section F.8 – Level of Effort (page 40): The RFP states “LOE is for productive workdays. Leave and holidays do not count towards the provision of LOE.”

While productive workdays can be estimated by all offerors for USN staff, this will vary for CCN and TCN staff by country based on local labor law and holidays. Offerors who directly bill total workdays for local staff may not be able to identify at the proposal stage the exact number of days to subtract from the provision of LOE that count toward the term contract. Furthermore, since the place of performance and field offices proposed is not specifically defined in the RFP, the proposed locations will vary by offeror, furthering the variation of level of effort proposed across offerors.

● Would USAID consider defining productive workdays for CCNs at 260 days per year (inclusive of leave and holidays) in order to achieve parity across all offers?

Answer: Please budget in accordance with your company’s policies.

GUCs

84. B4, Pg. 8, L8, Pgs. 131 and 132. On Pgs. 8 and 131, the GUC budget is $14.4 million, and on Pg. 132, the GUC budget is $14.6 million. Could you please confirm the budget?

Answer: The amount is $14.4M, the RFP has been amended accordingly.

85. B.4 Budget, page 8: Can USAID confirm if the $14.4 million for GUCs is for both the base years and option years?

Answer: Correct, $14.4 M is for the entire period of performance including option year.

86. B.4 Budget, page 8: Are the costs of capacity building of GUC recipients included in or are separate from the $14.4 million?

Answer: The capacity building cost is separate.

87. B.4 Budget, page 8: Is there a minimum/maximum duration or dollar amount for each individual GUC?

Answer: The duration of grants may vary but no grants must be more than three years.

There is no minimum/maximum amount for individual GUC.

88. Can USAID please clarify the total anticipated amount allocated to GUCs, and advise if that amount should be evenly divided across base and option periods, or if the contractor may allocate that amount at their discretion?

Answer: All grants must be awarded within the first three years of the contract. The offerors can allocate an amount during the first three years at their discretion.

89. Section L.8. Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, 8. Grants under Contract (page 132): The RFP states: “Detailed information on proposed grant activities must be provided in the budget narrative.”

● As the grants will be determined post-award (per description in C..4.3), could

USAID please confirm that only a general description of the type of activities anticipated under GUCs is required in the budget narrative?

Answer: Yes, only general information is required. RFP has been amended to reflect the change.

90. Page 70, Section H.28. The limitation on the value of Fixed Amount Awards (FAAs) is capped at SAT per 2 CFR 200.333 for pass-through entities. As LGHS will be issuing grants on behalf of USAID under the GUC component, would USAID clarify if this value ceiling for FAAs would apply to the LGHS contractor?

Answer: GUCs to U.S. organizations are limited to SAT, there is no limitation to non U.S. organizations regardless of the type of the grant. However, GUCs to U.S.

organizations are not anticipated under LGHS award.

91. Does the amount dedicated to grants count towards the percentage of total payments made to the small business?

Answer: The question is not clear. If this is about the small business percentage of work, the GUCs are not included in this calculation.

Subcontractors

92. Are subcontractors subject to the same fee instructions as prescribed to the prime under paragraph 11 of the cost proposal instructions?

Answer: Subcontractor’s budget should have the same categories as the prime budget.

If GUCs are managed by a subcontractor, the fee associated with GUCs should be provided under the subcontractor’s budget, and should be separate from the fee on other costs in accordance with the instructions in Section L.

93. Section L.7.8 – Past Performance (page 129) and Section L.7.Part 8 – Information to Consent 136): The RFP states:

“…(a major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost excluding GUC CLIN)…” (p. 129) “ Major subcontractors” are those subcontractors whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost.”

a) Can USAID please confirm that a major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost excluding GUC CLIN (which is included in one of these statements but not both)?

Answer: Yes, a major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost excluding GUC CLINs. The RFP is amended accordingly.

b) Would USAID consider expanding the definition of Major Subcontractor to include language often included in USAID RFPs, i.e., adding to “A subcontractor whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror's total proposed cost excluding GUC CLIN” an additional phase such as “or any subcontractor which shall perform a prominent part of the technical effort.”

Answer: For this RFP major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost excluding GUC CLINs.

94. L.7.8 Past Performance, page 129: It is understood that the amount of GUC is not included in the 20% for a major subcontractor, and by implication is also excluded from the 51% LOE/totalcost for the small business. Can USAID please confirm this?

Answer: Yes. USAID confirms that is correct.

Section L -Proposal Instructions

95. Page 129, Section L.7.8. Past Performance. This Section defines the major subcontractor as “…a major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost excluding GUC CLIN…”. Please confirm that this statement is meant to read “excluding GUC and Fixed Fee on GUCs CLINs” (CLINs 0003 and 0005).

Answer: Yes. USAID confirms that is correct. The RFP is amended accordingly.

96. Page 131, Section L.8 Part 2. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should adhere to the budget structure and categories provided in the Attachment J.4 Budget Template, rather than the budget categories shown in Section L.8 Part 2 of the RFP, which are slightly different?

Answer: The RFP and Budget Template has been updated for consistency.

97. On page 130, Section L.8, Part 2- Proposed Costs/Prices, Can USAID provide an exchange rate for this contract?

98. Section L.8. Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices 4.Travel (page 132): The RFP states:

“When appropriate please provide supporting documentation as an attachment, such as the organization’s travel policy, and include all assumptions in the budget narrative.”

● Per RFP Section Part L.8. Part 4 (page 135), can USAID please confirm offerors and subcontractors only need to submit their policies including travel in the proposal if the offeror and/or subcontractors do not have prior Federal contracting experience?

Answer: Prime and major subcontractors’ policies are not required unless specifically requested by CO. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

99. Section L.8. Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices, 6. Supplies (page 132): The RFP states, “Costs must be broken down by types and units, and include an analysis that it is more advantageous to purchase than lease.”

● Would USAID please consider requiring a purchase vs. lease analysis only on high value items?

Answer: A purchase vs. lease analysis is not required for expandable supplies.

Indirect Rates Ceiling

100. B6, Pg 9. Would USAID consider removing the requirement to set ceiling indirect rates? Most small business procurements do not have this requirement as indirect rates tend to fluctuate more for small businesses and this requirement can be a burden.

Answer: Removed from Section B.

Various

101. May Offerors include costs for key personnel to attend any future Global Health Security Conferences held annually during the supported period of performance base and option years?

Answer: Participation in Global Health Security Conferences should be limited to those conferences where project personnel will be presenting on LGHS. Participation will be approved by the COR on a case by case basis, therefore there is no need to budget for those.