Attachment J.13. RFP 72061120R00005_Q&A.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.13 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

USAID is pleased to provide the following answers to the questions submitted by the various prospective offerors electronically by the questions due date. The questions and answers have been aligned with the solicitation format for ease of reference.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Will USAID provide the year 1/COP 2020/FY21 targets?

Response: Please see Section C.8 Indicators, the targets have been included and each year the targets will be updated in the contract as determined in the COP.

2. To what extent will USAID support the contractor in negotiating data access to SmartCare systems?

Response: The contractor will be responsible for managing and maintaining ALL ART clients in SmartCare.

Refer to Objective C.7.7. Further, USAID will ensure that contractor has access to all SmartCare data it generates from developers and encourages the Contractor to have internal capacity to run customized reports.

3. Given the COVID-19 situation in Zambia and guidance from the Government of Zambia regarding meetings and gatherings, would USAID consider extending the submission date for

Phase 1? Current conditions, our engagement in responding to pandemic planning and the evolving nature of the response greatly hamper our collective ability to properly design a performance based work statement.

Response: Submission due date for phase I proposal submission has been extended to April 30, 2020.

Refer to amendment 1.

4. The RFP cover page states the opportunity number as "72061120R00005," while section

L.4(c) states the opportunity number as "7206119R00005." Can USAID please confirm the

RFP number for this opportunity?

Response: The Solicitation number is 72061120R00005. Section L.4(c) has since been updated. Refer to amendment 1.

5. With the security concerns that had rocked the country and also the COVID-19 concerns, we need to engage a lot of stakeholders in the process of developing the proposals. Are you able to consider extending the submission date for the proposal?

Response: Please see response to question three(3) above.

6. Is USAID going to consider providing a start-up advance given the likelihood that local organizations might not have the capacity to put up estimated forwarding funds required for start-up in year one for this size of contract? If so, how what is the approach that USAID is considering to use in making advance funding available?

Response: USAID will leave its options open, the decision will be informed by the pre-award risk assessment and responsibility determination once we get to that stage. Organizations are also encouraged to source local lines of credits and utilize banking facilities. This may be more expensive but will also ensure that local systems are used for business development and growth.

7. Do their caps that will apply of how much of the budget should be given to sub-contracts? If so, what guidance should we use?

Response: We have added a clause in Section H (See H.44) Limitation on Subcontracting to Non-Local

Entities (July 2014) for guidance. Also clause 52.215-23 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges will be utilized.

8. Which policy documents is USAID relying on to define the following:

● Local Organization? Response: USAID is relying on the PEPFAR 2020

Country Operational Plan Guidance for all PEPFAR Countries. Please see hyperlink in attachment J.3 and definition has been updated in the RFP.

● Principal place of business? Response: This is contained within the PEPFAR guidance and the definition to be used in the RFP for “principal place of business” is the primary location where an organization’s business is performed. For this solicitation, the organization's principal place of business must be Zambia, for the prime.

9. Is USAID going to consider making multiple awards, such as per province or USAID will stick to making only one award for all three provinces?

Response: Please refer to Attachment J.6 section L.2(a). USAID reserves the right to award more than one award.

10. May you please consider extending the deadline for submission to a later date?

Response: Please see response to question three (3) above.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION C

11. Re: C.7.1, should this include DREAMS interventions given that Kasama is now a DREAMS district?

Response: DREAMS has a separate contractor and hence will not be integrated with this contract. The contractor is expected to collaborate with the DREAMS partner to ensure that HIV positive AGYWs are identified, commenced and maintained on HIV treatment throughout the life of the project and beyond.

12. What further guidance can USAID provide on the MEL components required for the application?

Response: The AMELP will be developed post award and its contents will be agreed upon at the appropriate time.

13. On page 12 of the RFP, Objective 4 reads as follows: “4. Reach 90 percent of eligible HIV positive adults and children with NACS”. While all other objectives correspond to the requirements in Section C7, there appears to be a misalignment between Objective 4 and

C.7.4, which focuses on integrating voluntary family planning services into 95 percent of HIV service delivery locations. The latter requirement then aligns with the proposed indicators on page 18. Hence, for MECH, is reaching “90 percent” of eligible HIV positive adults and children with NACS still an objective? If so, does USAID intend for the contractor to incorporate NACS into all relevant interventions included in the section C.7 Technical

Focus/General Requirements of the RFP?

Response: This was an oversight. Both NACS and integration of family planning are of importance in this

RFP. Thus, NACS remains an objective and must be included as a requirement for this and the RFP has been updated to reflect this oversight.

14. On page 12 of the RFP, the following sentence, “District classification definitions and district assignments are provided in Table 1 below,” refers to a Table that is not included in the RFP.

Could USAID please share this table?

Response: This was an oversight. The RFP has been updated to include the table.

15. The weekly and monthly reporting expectations provided on pages 15-17 and pages 36-37 of the solicitation are not clear. Can USAID more clearly indicate which data must be reported weekly and which must be reported monthly, and ensure the information in these two sections is consistent and clear?

Response: Please refer to deliverable #8, on page 37, it has outlined indicators which require weekly reporting and those which require monthly reporting. The table in Section C (pages 15-17) has indicated weekly/monthly purposely given that PEPFAR reporting requirement evolve and should it change on any given indicator then a modification will be made under Section F.`

16. Does USAID allow to carry out a small assessment to understand capacity gaps in the provinces with the same resource or a separate resource at the start of the project?

Response: No. There are no resources for such assessment.

17. To what extent will this contract be expected to implement eFirst SmartCare implementations?

Response: The contractor is expected to put all patients into the Electronic Medical Record. eFirst requirement will be assessed during the course of implementation with the contractor.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION F.

18. In Section F.6 Reports, Deliverables, and Outputs No. 16, USAID is requesting a Quarterly

Financial Report, which seems duplicative of monthly invoicing requirements. Could deliverable No. 16 be revised to include an Accruals Report only, given continued monthly invoices to be submitted?

Response: Quarterly Financial Reporting is not invoicing and the two are distinct. The deliverable (QFR) is a financial snapshot report. USAID has outlined what must be included therein. Invoicing is proof of a transaction(s), which the contractor will send for USAID to pay/reimburse against. USAID is keeping the deliverable as is.

19. Can USAID please elaborate on required Key Personnel (p.39) position titles, expected roles and responsibilities and minimum qualifications?

Response: The offeror is required to propose the key personnel position during phase II, and those positions must include roles and responsibilities, and minimum requirements/qualifications. The proposed key personnel positions, and roles and responsibilities, and minimum requirements will be evaluated in accordance with Factor 2- Management Approach. The number of slots for key personnel positions included on page 39 indicates the maximum number of key personnel the offeror can propose and the minimum number required is one. Therefore, offerors are expected to propose the number of key personnel positions that reflect the proposed technical approach/PBWS. This approach will allow maximum flexibility for the Offeror to propose what they believe are the right Key Personnel to carry out this activity.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION H.

20. Can USAID please provide guidance on any anticipated construction activities to be supported by this activity?

Response: USAID does not anticipate any construction activities under this contract, however, should the offeror anticipate construction activities as defined in the RFP, in their technical approach (PBWS), then they (offeror) should clearly state so, and ensure to budget for it in the cost proposal submission during phase II.

21. Section H.3 of the RFP, “Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, the maximum prevailing compensation shall be the same as the maximum salary under the

Country Mission Local Compensation Plan.” We respectfully request that the above-mentioned salary restriction be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with

AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.3

(page 51), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700.

Response: USAID will maintain the language. In as much as contractors are required to follow their own policies, there are certain restrictions/limitations that have to be followed and only waived on a case by case basis, which the statement, “Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, the maximum prevailing compensation shall be the same as the maximum salary under the Country Mission Local

Compensation Plan…” is intended. The restriction above refers to TCNs and CCN and this is covered by

AIDAR 722.170. Offerors should also ensure that any TCN waiver being proposed is backed with sufficient market research and hiring procedure that demonstrates how no Zambian candidate can fulfill the position required.

22. Under Section H.3(e) Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation 3) e) Annual Salary

Increases, 1) and 2) both limit promotional increases. This is in contradiction to H.3(b)

Limitations, which requires the contractor to submit and use their established personnel scale and policy. If positions are classified within the contractor’s scale, and personnel are promoted into a different position, then the position remuneration should fit that position’s requirements and responsibilities. We request USAID consider removing language in both 1) and 2) that mention promotional increases.

Response: USAID does not see this as a contradiction. In Section H.3(e), more specificity is added as to the typical percentage increases and if there is a big jump in salary increments USAID would want to maintain oversight and ensure a clear rationale is presented and documented by the contractor.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION J.

Attachment J.1

23. As currently described, none of the fee is awarded for management functions, including submission of reports and other deliverables. This is standard practice in Cost-Plus-Award-

Fee Type Contracts. Could USAID reconsider the fee structure to allow for a portion of the fee being awarded based on management deliverables?

Response: Thank you for bringing this up. USAID looked at the criticality of this acquisition and its impact on related efforts when choosing this contract type. Given PEPFAR’s ambitious targets and the goal to maximize the potential impact of USG resources to make sustainable improvements in maintaining HIV epidemic control by shifting accountability and ownership to local stakeholders, the fee structure as set up is considered to be reflective of the needs of this requirement/procurement. The areas identified in the fee structure should enable contractors to know the areas critical to success of the activity and the way it is set up will help achieve effective communication between Government (USAID) and contractor personnel at all levels to achieve desired results.

24. As currently stated, the fee is awarded annually. Can USAID consider awarding some of the fee on more frequent schedule?

Response: USAID considers annual awarding of fee to be appropriate as it will provide the AFB and FDO ability to look at contract performance holistically, not only at specific events or phase in implementation.

25. How does the proposed Award Fee Determination process correspond, if at all, to the

CPARS process?

Response: The CPARS is not and shall not be used as part of the award fee criteria. The award fee determinations will be evaluated based on the Award Fee Evaluation plan.

26. Two of the three factors, representing 30% of the fee, will be determined using Adjectival

Rating criteria. As describe in Attachment J.1, the criteria are highly subjective. Could USAID consider reducing the percentage of fee awarded based on subjective ratings and reapply some of that percentage to address question 11[23] above?

Response: No, USAID considers the fee allocation to be commensurate to the level of importance associated with areas of performance that are most important to the program’s success.

27. Also regarding the Adjectival Grading, the guidance says it will be applied to Factors 1-3 and

Factor 4 will be Achievement of Targets. However, there are only two factors to which

Adjectival Grading seems appropriate. Can USAID please revise or clarify?

Response: Factor 4 should have been factor 3 and this has since been corrected. The adjectival rating will be used for all factors (including factor 3- achievement of targets). For example, if the adjectival rating for achievement of targets is excellent, the contractor will be awarded the maximum amount possible for this factor.

28. There are discrepancies in the timing presented under the Method for Determining Award

Fee and the General Instructions for Performance Monitoring. For example, in the Methods section it states that the determination will be made within 45 calendar days and in the

General Methods section it states that this step will take place within 50 days. Also, please clarify that all days are calendar days.

Response: It will be 60 calendar days and it has been updated in the attachment.

29. The flow of information from submission, to DATIM and the Review Board does not seem to align. Can USAID please review and ensure that information, particularly from DATIM, will be available by the dates proposed.

Response: Timings on form J1 reviewed to align with DATIM

30. In a number of places it states the Contractor may be notified, may be asked to provide additional information, or may be provided feedback. We request that most of these be a requirement and not a possible action taken by the COR. This includes providing feedback on the final fee determination.

Response: USAID used may to allow some flexibility on what the contractor has to submit or not. The award type should help foster effective communication between Government (USAID) and contractor personnel at all levels to achieve desired results, unless, there is some discontent or the information provided to the AFB/FDO is unclear, then additional documentation is requested.

31. Would USAID please consider adding clear guidance on a process and timetable by which the

Contractor can protest the fee determination?

Response: Award fee determinations are not subject to the Disputes clause of the contract. A clause has been added in Section H (H.43) to provide more clarification on Award fee.

32. Is USAID open to negotiating a base fee to cover the cost of money in order to secure a bank line of credit to advanced funding for activities as no local organization in Zambia has the funds readily available without cost?

Response: Yes. The decision to discuss/negotiate base fee will be informed by the results of Non US

Organizations Pre-award Survey.

Attachment J.6

33. In Attachment J.6. Section L, USAID states the anticipated start date is June 1, 2020.

However, the USAID Business Forecast, updated on March 13, 2020, indicates a start date of

October 28, 2020. Can USAID please clarify the expected start date for this activity?

Response: The anticipated start date is September 30, 2020 and we have made the corresponding update in the attachment. The Business Forecast start date remains at October 28, 2020 as that follows the standard procurement action lead time of 268 days after release of a requisition. However, all of this is subject to change based on evolving challenges being faced by everyone.

34. In Attachment J.6 Section L.5, USAID states that the submission for Phase 2 is limited to 25 pages and includes the technical proposal. Please clarify if the submission should include the performance based work statement submitted in Phase 1 in addition to Factors 2-4 and

Annexes. If the submission is to include all 4 Factors, please reconsider the page limit which is set at 25 pages for this phase. Also, is there any breakdown for the 25 pages across the three

Factors to be addressed in Phase 2?

Response: Please refer to Section L.5.2. Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4, are all considered to be Technical Proposal or Volume I of the offeror’s proposal. Section L.5.2. clearly states: “ In Phase II, the offeror must submit a technical proposal in response to the remaining evaluation factors 2, 3 and 4.” Offerors have discretion on how they will distribute the pages in the remaining technical volume. E.g. Could use 10 pages for management approach, 10 for Institutional Capacity and 2/5 for performance history/past performance, the underlying point is not to exceed 25 pages. The Offeror will not re-submit the PBWS under Phase II.

35. RFP Section L.6.2(d) states that biodata forms, “are not required at the solicitation stage.”

However, the Table of Contents in L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of Volume II– Cost/Business Proposal, includes biodata forms for Key Personnel under 2d. Please confirm that biodata forms should not be submitted as part of the cost proposal.

Response: Confirmed, since there is no requirement to propose individual(s) under Key Personnel, at this stage. We have since updated the table of contents to reflect this.

36. We require clarification on the envisaged contracting type - CPAF per the RFP versus the guidance under Attachment J, Section L, which indicates CPFF. In the RFP covering letter, section B2 and section L.2 (p.120) indicate that the envisaged contract type for this award is a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee type contract. But in Attachment J.6 Section L.2(a), it says that

“…… The US Government anticipates awarding one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Completion-

Type Contract as a result of this Solicitation…..”

Response: The resulting contract will be a Cost-plus Award Fee type Contract. The section has been amended since, thank you for pointing that out.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION L.

37. Does the Table of Contents and the Eligibility Criteria pages count towards the 25-page limit of the Performance-Based Work Statement?

Response: No. Please refer to Section L.5.2

38. In regards to the two stage review process, please clarify the following: (a) after the Phase 1

Review, will USAID provide comments and request clarification on the proposed technical approach and will bidders have an opportunity to respond as part of a Phase 2 submission?

(b) if the answer to the preceding question is yes, will the performance based work statement be re-evaluated in Phase 2, taking in consideration response to questions and clarifications?

Response: No. as stated in the RFP on page 121: “no discussions, or revisions of an offeror’s Phase I submission will occur.” USAID will issue an advisory notice on the confidence rating the Government has on the offeror's submitted PBWS/technical approach and based on that information the offeror will decide whether to participate in phase II or voluntarily withdraw from competition. Discussion or revisions may only occur after phase II evaluation.

39. On page 122, the RFP states “Electronic proposal will be submitted addressing evaluation factors 1 and 2 only,” however on page 125 the RFA states “In Phase I, the offeror will submit a technical approach in response to evaluation factors 1 only.” Can USAID please confirm that Phase I only includes Factor 1?

Response: Confirmed. Language on page 122 has been updated to reflect this. Refer to Amendment 1

40. Can USAID please clarify if the Phase 1 25-page limit (p. 125) only applies to the Phase 1

Technical Approach?

Response: Yes. Also see response to question 37 above.

41. Can USAID please provide an expected timeline between receipt of an Advisory Notice and

Phase II Proposal Due Date?

Response: The due date for phase II will be communicated in the advisory notice, sufficient time (30-45 days) will be provided in between the notice and required submission date.

42. Can USAID please elaborate on L.5.2 Phase I Technical Approach (p. 125) directions?

Response: This question is unclear. Anyhow, the offeror must submit a PBWS in response to factor 1 and it must address and follow the format stated on page 125/ L..5.2(a).

43. Is the review process going to include government of the republic of Zambia representatives for both phases of proposal evaluations?

Response: Proposals will be evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Committee.

44. Could USAID confirm that in addition to the rating, proposers would get feedback on strengthens and weakness to assist in their full proposal response.

Response: USAID will follow procedures as outlined in FAR 15.505 or FAR 15.506.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION M.

45. Does USAID have a preference in terms of the TA activities that should be prioritized or is it the implementing partner’s role to pick the gap in the PHOs and address them?

Response: It is for the offeror to propose and USAID will evaluate in accordance with Section M.2.2(a).