Attachment_J.13_Responses_to_Questions_72061118R00006_E4H_Solicitation.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.13 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

USAID is pleased to provide the following answers/responses to questions that were submitted by industry/prospective offerors. All questions and points of clarification received by the due date and time were considered for inclusion in the Question and Answer table below. Please note that: the questions and answers have been aligned with the solicitation format (Sections) for ease of reference. Additionally the solicitation has been updated and the updates are highlighted in yellow.

QUESTIONS USAID Responses

GENERAL

Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation posted as solicitation number 72061118R00006 on FBO contain requirements similar to a existing contract or will this be a new requirement?

If possible, please provide the current contract number.

Solicitation number

72061118R00006 is a new requirement and there is no existing contract.

Is there an incumbent for this project?

● If not, are there other organizations conducting a portion of the activities for the government from whom the offer would be expected to assume responsibility of their activities upon award?

● If yes, which organizations?

No, there is no incumbent since it is a new project/activity.

The submission time of May 29, 2018, 2pm Lusaka time immediately follows a US Federal Holiday (Memorial Day).

In light of this, the applicant kindly requests that the deadline for submission be extended for one week to June

5, 2018.

The deadline has been extended to June 20, 2018.

See Amendment #1 cover sheet

Would USAID consider allowing for a submission date of

June 5, 2018, given that Monday, May 28, is a USG federal holiday?

See response #3

Given that Monday, May 28 is a national holiday, would

USAID consider extending the deadline to Thursday, May

See response #3

31?

Cover letter, “Closing Date: May 29, 2018 2:00 p.m. Lusaka

Time”.

Given the 4-week turnaround and the changes between the

RFI and RFP, is there any possibility of extending the submission deadline/closing date?

See response #3

Please confirm the start-up period for this project. The project will start upon contracting officer fully executing the contract.

8 Should we assume the start date is still November 1st as specified in the RFI?

See response #7

Can USAID please provide clarification to implementers regarding Grants Under Contract? The current RFP has not given grants under contract authority. Is there any intention to use grants under contract as part of the technical approach?

No. Grants under contract are not envisioned for this activity/contract.

Could USAID please identify the current partners supporting the GRZ Ministry of Health’s HMIS systems and their specific roles?

Given that L.6.1 requires offerors to provide a situational analysis of the

Zambian context, USAID will not provide this information.

The current Country Development Cooperation Strategy ends in 2018. Is there a draft of the next CDCS that USAID

Zambia can share with us?

No. The current CDCS is valid and applicable to this activity. Should an amendment or new

CDCS be issued, it will be made available to the public via the

USAID/Zambia mission website:

http://ww.usaid.gov/zm/ .

Are there USAID-funded projects expected to close near the time expected for award of this project from which the offer could receive equipment or other assets

No government furnished property is envisioned to be issued for this activity.

If this changes, Offerors will be notified through the FBO.gov website.

Are there any organizations, including as subcontractors, that are precluded from providing services to the government under the RFP due to conflict of interest?

None. Refer to AIDAR

752.209-71 regarding

OCI.

http://ww.usaid.gov/zm/

Will USAID please confirm that the Offeror and

Subcontractors of the Offeror will be exempted from VAT in Zambia?

Confirmed. USAID program funds are exempt from paying VAT.

SECTION B

On Page 4, Paragraph B.5, Note (2) states: “Major subcontractors are subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed

20% of the Offeror’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the SOW.” Please clarify what is defined as a key element of the SOW.

Key element means any subcontractor performing a task under objective #1.

See amendment #1.

Section b.5, page 4. A company's indirect rates are widely acknowledged to be proprietary information and protected from disclosure. Thus, we propose that such information from major subcontractors, not be included in draft/resultant contract.

Indirect cost rates will be included in the final contract however all proprietary information is treated as “sensitive but unclassified” and protected from disclosure by the US government.

Section B.7, Page 5. A cost plus fixed fee completion type of contract normally requires the contractor to complete and deliver the specified end product as a condition for payment of the fixed fee. However as currently worded, it’s not clear what end-products are required to receive the fixed fee.

Further, as no M&E plan is required as part of the proposal submission, it’s not clear what basis B.7 would be completed at the time of award. In order to better understand the risk associated with the fee being fully paid, we kindly ask USAID to define the end-products associated with each of the fee payments and percentage thereof.

Section B.7 has been updated. Fees are tied to completion of actual targets/goals and completion of certain deliverables as detailed in

Section F.

See amendment #1.

Page 5. Section B.7. Could USAID please confirm that the proposed fee schedule is intended to be illustrative, and that changes can be proposed by the Offeror?

Yes, this is confirmed.

See Amendment #1.

In Section B.7, page 5, the solicitation states that the table is illustrative. Will USAID confirm that proposed fee percentages are also illustrative, and that offerors can propose and or set the level of fee percentage by deliverable?

Yes, this is confirmed.

USAID will allow offerors to propose fee schedules.

See amendment #1.

Page 5, Section B.7, Payment of Fixed Fee: This section provides an illustrative fee distribution table that will be filled in at the time of award. Section B.4, Contract Budget, requested to propose the fixed fee broken down by each year. No further instructions were given in Section L regarding the fee except that it should not exceed the statutory limitations. Please confirm that offerors are not required to propose a percentage of the fee allocated to each of the 40 deliverables stated in Section F.7.2, and that this step will be negotiated and finalized with the successful

Yes, this is confirmed.

offeror at the time of award.

Section B-Services/Prices, Payment of Fixed Fee, Page 5. The totals in the Total Fixed Fee row are not summing correctly

(e.g., the total for Yr. 1 is 19%, not 29%). Can USAID please revise the table?

The table has been revised. See amendment

#1.

SECTION C

Sub-IR 3.2.3 “Community Health Practices Improved” is not displayed on the results framework (RF) in the RFP on pp.

7-8. Should we defer to the RF in the Zambia CDCS?

Sub-IR 3.2.3 is from the

CDCS and not the results framework for this solicitation.

On pg. 14 (Task 3.1.2), the RFP requires the contractor to

"Provide technical assistance to implementing partners in the development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation plans, performance monitoring plans, and implementing partner-led studies, research, and assessments."

Can USAID please provide an estimate of how many implementing partners will need this support from Evidence for Health? Will the contractor be expected to provide technical assistance to all health office implementing partners?

USAID has 25 implementing partners in health. The contractor will provide support to all health partners on an as needed basis over the course of the contract.

On page 14 (Task 3.1.1), the RFP states that "studies will focus on specific health areas and topics to be determined by USAID. USAID Evidence for Health will conduct these studies and widely disseminate findings." .

Can USAID please clarify if the contractor will have any input on the research questions that will be addressed?

Does dissemination require publication?

Yes the contractor will have input on research questions. The majority of research papers will be published.

On page 13 (Task 2.1.2), the RFP requires the contractor to

"conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of selected research institutions and selected research departments of the MOH on the gaps in capacity across the research design, execution, and publication processes. Capacity assessments must be completed in partnership with MOH Directorate of

Public Health, MOH Research Unit, and Zambian research institutions such as the Central Statistics Office, University of Zambia, and private universities in Zambia.”

Can USAID please clarify whether the contractor will engage these organizations as recipients of capacity building support or whether USAID intends for the contractor to partner with these organizations to assess other Zambian organizations? What does it mean to complete these

The contractor will engage these organizations as recipients of capacity building support.

partnerships in partnership?

Under TASK 3.1.3 USAID/Zambia Health Office Monitoring and Evaluation Division Support, it is mentioned that the contractor will be responsible for “Supporting the execution of Site Improvement through Monitoring Systems visits.”

Can USAID expound on what this type of support would entail?

This support will entail planning, execution, and analysis of results on an as needed basis.

Task 1.3.3 Dashboards and Other Supplementary Tools

Developed: The solicitation states that dashboards and tools will be open source. However, several software currently used in country are not open source.

Could the mission clarify how the contractor is expected to achieve this task?

Dashboards and supplementary tools will not be developed for all software platforms in country. Open source platforms will be prioritized for this task.

Task 1.2.1 Pre-Service Training Curriculum: Considering that Councils revise their curricula every two years, would the mission consider a pilot rather than a roll-out of a curriculum for all health professions and affiliated?

USAID prefers to support a curriculum roll out rather than a pilot.

Section C.7, Key Stakeholders: Could the mission clarify whether this project will target MOH health facilities, without including private facilities?

The focus of support will be public health facilities.

Section C.6, Results Framework: could the mission clarify what it means by “Objective 1 is of highest priority”?

The award was designed with Objective 1 as the most important objective compared to 2 and 3.

Approximately half of effort and budget should be allocated to this objective.

The Overview section (C.2) states that the Project will support strategic objectives of USAID, PEPFAR, and PMI.

Though support to PMI through the NMEC is mentioned under Tasks 1.1.4 & 1.3.2, it is not clear how this project will also support PEPFAR priorities. Could the mission clarify their expectations?

National HMIS data underpin measurement of progress toward HIV epidemic control and strengthen service delivery in the cascade of care and treatment for people living with HIV.

Improved monitoring, evaluation and research capacities and expanded evidence base will also contribute to the achievement of PEPFAR priorities.

The RFP contains a requirement (task 3.2.2) for research studies to be conducted by Junior Health researchers. The requirement is not specifically tied to a grants fund, or to payments made through grants. Will USAID confirm that grants are not expected to be issued under this contract, and that a grants fund is not envisioned for the project?

Confirmed.

Section C.9, page 15, refers to Task 3.2.2 Research Studies

Generated by Junior Zambian Health Researchers to Build the Evidence Base. For budgeting purposes, would USAID please provide an estimated number of, and anticipated value for, the junior researcher studies, annually over the life of the project?

It is anticipated that the contractor will support approximately 10 junior researchers per year, for an approximate total of 50 over life of project. We expect the offeror to propose the anticipated cost in their budget.

Section C.9, page 14, refers to Task 3.1.3 USAID/Zambia

Health Office Monitoring and Evaluation Division Support.

For budgeting purposes, would USAID please provide an estimated number of DQAs and SIMS visits anticipated to be conducted annually over the five-year life of the project?

This task will be conducted on an as needed basis. USAID anticipates approximately

200 DQA/SIMS site visits over the life of project.

Section C.9, page 14, refers to Task 3.1.1 Operations

Research, Special Studies, Assessments, and Big Data

Analyses. For budgeting purposes, would USAID please provide an estimated number of performance evaluations, impact evaluations and special studies involving large datasets anticipated annually over the five-year life of the project?

This task will be conducted on an as needed basis. USAID anticipates approximately

5-10 studies of this type over the life of project.

Section C.9, page 11, refers to Task 1.1.3 HMIS Community of Practice. We have the following question:

Does USAID see the establishment of the HMIS Community of Practice as a distinct donor coordination group that is specific to the Evidence for Health project, and therefore separate from any existing coordination or technical consultation groups, such as the MOH Monitoring and

Evaluation Technical Working Group?

The contractor may propose the most functional structure that would support donor coordination.

Section C.9, Scope, under Task 2.1.1 Research Institutions

Capacity Assessments, page 13, states: “Conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of selected research institutions and selected research departments of the MOH on the gaps in capacity across the research design, execution, and publication processes.”

Would USAID kindly provided an estimated number of

It is anticipated that between three and six research institutions will be selected for capacity building support.

research institutions expected to receive capacity building support from the Evidence for Health contractor?

Section C.6, Results Framework, page 6, the RFP includes a box of six “Key Deliverables” that are not referenced elsewhere in the solicitation.

Would USAID please clarify where each of the six deliverables fits into Section F.7.2 Reports and Plans

Submission Schedule on pages 24 to 28 of the RFP?

USAID has updated the results framework to remove the “key deliverables” box.

See amendment #1. Please note that Section F of the

RFP is the definitive list of deliverables expected from this award.

Can USAID clarify the intent for the list of key deliverables for supporting development of MOH products on page 8, Section C.6, of the RFP?

See response #38

Section C.9, Scope, under Task 2.1.1 (page 13), Research

Institutions Capacity Assessments and Task 2.1.2 Research

Institutions Capacity Development Plans, an “MOH

Research Unit” is referenced. On page 15, under Task 3.2.1

Biannual National Health Research Symposium, an “MOH

Directorate of Public Health Research Unit” is referenced.

Would USAID please clarify the following:

a. Are these referring to the same research unit?

b. Kindly confirm the name(s) of the research unit(s) referenced.

Yes, these are referring to the same unit. The name is confirmed as the MOH

Directorate of Public

Health Research Unit.

Task 1.2.2 Health Sector Staff Capacity on page 12 states that “The Contractor will utilize an MOH-standardized approach and support tools and work will be done in partnership with MOH staff at the national, provincial, district, and facility levels and other donor-funded implementing partners working at these levels.”

Can USAID clarify what they are referring to for MOH-standardized approach and support tools?

It is expected that the contractor follow MOH procedures and policies. If new procedures or policies are recommended by the contractor, they must first be adopted by the MOH before dissemination.

For Task 1.1.3 HMIS Community of Practice on page 11, does USAID imagine other donors mentioned including EU, SIDA, JICA, MACEPA, CHAI, and others would participate in the CoP?

Yes.

For Result 1.2 on page 12, can USAID clarify that the pre-service training curriculum is intended for academic teaching staff to train student health professionals or facility-level health professionals, or both?

It is for facility-level health professionals only.

Section C.10, page 15 states that “This will ensure better-trained and better-resourced field staff within the health sector that are able to improve the quality, timeliness, accessibility, and use of health data.”

Resourced in this context is referring to staff capacity.

Can USAID clarify what they mean by “Better resourced”?

Section C.9, page 11, states that “The Contractor will prioritize facilities within each district that are in greatest need of assistance and provide direct support to selected facilities that encompass 75 percent of key service delivery

(ART, RMNCH, and malaria) in Lusaka, Northwestern, and

Eastern provinces to reach adequate coverage of facility support.”

a. Can USAID clarify that Copperbelt Province should also be included?

b. Can USAID clarify by what criteria will facilities that are “in greatest need of assistance” will be determined?

c. Can USAID clarify what they mean by “provide direct support to selected facilities that encompass

75 percent of key service delivery (ART, RMNCH, and malaria)” will be determined?

Language has been updated in the solicitation.

See amendment #1.

In section C.6, page 5, the Results Framework is missing

Task 1.1.4. Please revise.

The results framework has been amended to include Task 1.1.4.

See amendment #1.

Page 14. Section C.9. Objective 3. Result 3.1. Should the

Offeror include in its budget the budgets for the studies/research that it will conduct under Task 3.1.1, or will these be funded separately?

Offerors are expected to budget for studies/research that it will conduct under Task

3.1.1. See response #35.

Page 14. Section C.9. Objective 2. Result 2.1. Under Task

2.1.3, does USAID have restrictions on what can be funded in support of research institution capacity building?

Specifically, is purchase of hardware, software, and other equipment and supplies allowed? Infrastructure improvements?

Purchase of software and other equipment and supplies are permitted.

Infrastructure improvements and purchase of hardware are not permitted under this award.

Page 13. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.3 Under Task

1.3.4, can USAID clarify the implementer’s role in creating an interoperability layer in the HMIS, whether the focus is technical assistance or actual development of the interoperability layer?

The focus is to provide technical assistance.

Page 13. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.3. The RFP names several systems that comprise the Zambia HMIS:

DHIS2, eLMIS, SmartCare, HRIS, IFMIS, and IDSR (Page 7, The contractor must provide support to MOH that leads to

Section C.4). Task 1.3.4 envisions interoperability between

DHIS2 and other components “in line with existing priorities of the e-Health Strategy.” While the e-Health

Strategy provides details into GRZ’s vision for an interoperable HMIS, it does not specify which components should be included or prioritized, nor does the description of Deliverable 15. Given the limitations of the the project’s ability to modify systems supported by other projects, what guidance can USAID provide on the number or priority of systems expected to be interoperable with DHIS2 by the end of the project?

interoperability and data exchange between DHIS2 and two to three other prioritized systems to be selected with the MOH upon award.

Page 13. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.3. Under Task

1.3.2, can USAID confirm that entomological surveillance activities are not included within the scope of this program?

Confirmed. No entomological surveillance activities are part of the scope.

Page 13. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.3. Under Task

1.3.2, if individual case investigation will be included in the scope of this program, can USAID clarify what responsibility the Contractor will have in the detection and investigation of these individual cases?

The role of the contractor will be to provide technical assistance to link data from reactive case detection to national malaria data systems.

Page 13. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.3. Under Task

1.3.2, can USAID clarify the Contractor’s role in strengthening malaria surveillance at the sub-national level?

Does USAID see a definite role at the sub-national level at the time of award that needs to be outlined in the proposal?

If so, can USAID clarify this role and note which sub-national levels are expected to be included (i.e. selected districts targeted for malaria elimination, facility catchment populations in areas of low transmission)?

Language has been updated in the RFP and it is at the discretion of the offeror to include an outline of the role at the sub-national level within the proposal.

Page 12. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.3. Under Task

1.3.1, can USAID clarify what responsibility the implementer will have for the activities of data collection at the community and facility level under this project?

Specifically under Task

1.3.1, the contractor will strengthen facility and community HMIS data through improvements in the national platform.

Page 12. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.2. Task 1.2.2 refers to the contractor utilizing an MOH-standardized approach and support tools. Have these tools already been developed and operationalized by the MOH or is the contractor responsible for developing this approach with the MOH?

See response #41

Page 11. Section C.9. Objective 1. Result 1.1. Task 1.1.3 refers to establishing a community of practice. Can USAID clarify how the community of practice will differ from a

See response #36. Yes the primary purpose is to coordinate the work of

TWG? Is the primary purpose to coordinate the work of implementing partners supporting HMIS?

implementing partners supporting HMIS.

Page 10 of the RFP indicates that the contractor should provide support in four provinces of the country, while at the same time developing national-level HMIS systems. Can the Mission comment on the expectations regarding working with other implementers or counterparts who will provide technical assistance in the remaining provinces?

It is expected that the contractor will work in close partnership with partners in the remaining provinces via the HMIS

Community of Practice.

Can USAID please confirm if there is an existing survey or baseline of research for the stated research fields under

Task 3.2.2: Research Studies Generated by Junior Health

Researchers to Build the Evidence Base?

There is currently no baseline.

With regard to Task 3.2.2: Research Studies Generated by

Junior Zambian Health Researchers to Build the Evidence

Base, can the Mission please clarify how many research studies on average are expected annually and a range of the expected costs for these studies?

See response #33

To help offerors develop cost estimates, can USAID please provide an estimate as to the number of participants, including USAID staff, that will attend the bi-annual health symposium as referenced in RFP Task 3.2.1: Biannual

National Health Research Symposium?

The biannual national health research symposia will be substantial events that involve all health areas in the scope of this contract. Participation is estimated at over 500 individuals.

With regards to RFP Task 3.1.1: Operations Research, Special Studies, Assessments, and Big Data Analyses, what role does USAID see the Evidence for Health activity playing with regard to non-USAID funded projects? Does the Mission envision that the Evidence for Health activity will evaluate other internationally funded programs working with the Ministry of Health in this area, or just Ministry of

Health activities?

USAID does not envision that the Evidence for

Health activity will evaluate other non-USAID funded programs.

Since the number and types of evaluations under Task 3.1.1:

Operations Research, Special Studies, Assessments, and Big

Data Analyses have not been specified, can the Mission please provide an estimated number of impact evaluations, performance evaluations, and special studies that may be implemented annually to help Offerors develop cost estimates?

See response #35.

Description/Statement of Work, Results Framework. Page

13. Result 2.1 mentions that certain government institutions, such as CSOs, UNZA and private universities are key players. Does USAID intend to have these as beneficiaries of research capacity strengthening intervention?

Yes.

Description/Statement of Work, Results Framework. Page

12. The table on targeted staff training has a mention that training targeting the community-based Malaria CHIS in

Eastern could change. Can USAID please elaborate what changes are expected?

We have updated the language in the RFP and the statement has since been removed. Changes that may occur will be discussed at workplan level.

See amendment #1.

Description/Statement of Work, Results Framework. Page

11. Task 1.1.4 is included under the Objective 1 SOW, but it is not shown on the results framework. Please confirm that offerors should consider this task in its response.

See response #46.

Description/Statement of Work, Scope. Page 10. The RFP states that "the activity will have strong national-level presence…while also demonstrating impact at selected provincial-, district-, facility- and community-levels." Can

USAID please provide specific examples of the type impact it expects to see at these levels?

Level-specific types of impact should be proposed by the offeror.

Description of Statement of Work, Results Framework.

Page 8. In the results framework graphic there is a text box marked “Key Deliverables—Supporting development of

MOH Products”. Are these key deliverables applicable across all the IRs or just specific IRs or sub-IRs? If this does not apply across the board, are there other key deliverables that the Mission expects for the other IRs?

See response #38.

On page 11 of the RFP, the first paragraph appears to be missing text. The first sentence of the paragraph is a sentence fragment. Please clarify.

Language has been updated. See amendment

#1.

On page 8 of the RFP, Task 1.1.4 is not included in the results framework, though it is included and described on p.

11. Please clarify.

See response to #46 above.

We are requesting additional clarification about the geographical focus as described on page 11. The RFP states, "While the Contractor will prioritize facilities within each district that are in greatest need of assistance, and provide direct support to selected facilities that encompass 75 percent of key service delivery (ART, RMNCH, and malaria) in Lusaka, Northwestern, and Eastern provinces to reach adequate coverage of facility support.” Kindly clarify whether this refers to 75 percent of clients, 75 percent of facilities, or another metric?

It refers to 75 percent of key service delivery results in ART and

RMNCH.

See amendment #1.

The contents of the table provided under Section C.9 Scope of Work on page 10 is inconsistent with the table provided for Task 1.1.2 provided on page 12. Can USAID please provide clarification on these tables?

Table provided under

Task 1.12 on page 12 has been updated. See amendment #1

Task 1.3.3 of the SOW states that “No additional software will be developed, and dashboards and tools will be open source.” Given that DHIS2 includes advanced data visualization features, should this language be interpreted as meaning that the dashboards and supplementary tools should be developed and implemented within the existing

DHIS2 system?

Yes.

On page 13 of the RFP, Task 1.3.1 indicates that “platform strengthening will include routine updates and maintenance…”. Could USAID please clarify whose responsibility it would be to perform the upgrades. For example, will the Evidence for Health contractor be expected to perform maintenance and upgrades to the

HMIS system, or will this be done by another party under the contractor’s oversight and guidance?

The role of the contractor will be to provide technical oversight and guidance to MOH to perform maintenance and upgrades.

Task 3.2.2, Page 15. Could USAID explain what it means by the “procurement of relevant, high quality research”? What is the intended offeror’s contribution to and intended result of this task?

The contractor will procure junior researchers to conduct research and the result is that the junior researchers will build the evidence base.

Task 3.1.1, Page 14. Will the work structured as standard performance or impact evaluations in task 3.1.1 require an approved protocol?

Yes.

Section C.9, Page 11. Could the government clarify what is meant by “75 percent of key service delivery (ART, RMNCH, and malaria) in Lusaka, Northwestern, and

Eastern provinces”?

See response # 70.

Section C.9, Page 11. Will the assessment and recommendations for HMIS include any aspects of data security?

Yes if needed.

Page 12, Section C.9 Scope, Objective 1, Result 1.3, Task

1.3.1, “Platform strengthening will include routine system upgrades and maintenance including assisting the MOH with standardization of collection, routine cleaning of indicators within the DHIS2 platform, and linking HMIS data to vital statistics and population estimates.”

Does "vital statistics" refer to linking other data sets (such as DHS, LCMS), or incorporating birth and death records/data? If this refers to birth and death records, does this mechanism allow for building out DHIS2 to incorporate aggregate CRVS data, and to what extent?

a. Vital statistics refers to both other data sets and birth and death records/data.

b. The contract does allow for building out

DHIS2 to incorporate

CRVS data and the extent of this is left to the discretion of the offeror to propose.

79 Page 12, Section C.9 Scope, Objective 1, Result 1.2, Task

1.2.2, Within targeted staff table, Community/Eastern.

Language has been updated in the RFP.

Within targeted staff table different cadres are mentioned for capacity building, however at community level in Eastern

Province a system is noted rather than a cadre. Who are the cadres targeted for support at community-level in

Eastern?

See amendment #1

Page 11, Section C.9 Scope, Objective 1, Result 1.1, Task

1.1.3, “Establish a community of practice of relevant

Cooperating Partners to improve coordination of donor support and donor engagement with GRZ with regard to

HMIS.” The HMIS Community of Practice – would this be separate from existing, already established forums?

See response #36 and #56

Page 11, Section C.9 Scope, Objective 1, Result 1.1, Task

1.1.1, “Conduct a rapid assessment of the HMIS, including key issues and challenges in the implementation of DHIS2 and other relevant systems that build on previous HMIS assessments.” On Page 7, the HMIS in Zambia is described as several electronic data collection and analysis systems including DHIS2, eLMIS, SmartCare, HRIS, IFMIS, and IDSR.

Given that several assessments of the HMIS DHIS2 platform have already been completed, is the focus of the rapid assessment on the totality of electronic health information systems in Zambia, or should it place a greater emphasis on data collection, completeness, analysis and use of DHIS2?

The focus will be on

DHIS2.

Page 10, Section C.9 Scope, In scope table, Eastern/Community level "malaria-specific" work. Could you please expand on the specific goals in enhancing malaria surveillance and the type of malaria-specific activity envisioned for the community level in Eastern Province?

Language has been updated in the RFP. The intent of the statement is to let offerors understand that in Eastern province, the activities are malaria specific. Review task 1.3.2.

See amendment #1.

Page 10, Section C.9 Scope, In scope table, facility level support. Is there a reason for not including facility-level support within Copperbelt Province?

It is not within the scope of this award.

Page 14, Task 3.1.1. For budgeting purposes, can USAID provide an estimate number of operations research, special studies, and assessments to be conducted in each year of the project?

See response #35 above.

On p. 12, in the table under Result 1.2, the wording of the cell for Community level in Eastern province has an asterisk that reads "may change". Can USAID clarify the rationale and time frame of this change?

See response #64.

On p. 9 under section C.9 Scope the RFP mentions that

"the Contractor will prioritize facilities within each district that are in greatest need of assistance, and provide direct support to selected facilities that encompass 75 percent of

See #70 and amendment

#1.

key service delivery (ART, RMNCH, and malaria) in Lusaka, Northwestern, and Eastern provinces to reach adequate coverage of facility support".

Can USAID provide the list of facilities that meet this threshold?

On p.8 under section C.6 Results Framework shows three tasks within Objective 1 / Results 1.1. Yet on p. 11 under section C.9 Scope there are four tasks within Objective 1 /

Results 1.1. Please clarify the number of tasks for Results

1.1.

See response #46 above.

SECTION F

The solicitation states on page 21 that "All Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor and dedicate

100% level of effort to this activity." However, the mix of technical expertise required from key personnel (HMIS, knowledge management/data demand and use, research and evaluation) may best be provided by partner organizations with expertise in these disciplines working together. Might

USAID consider an arrangement in which some key technical personnel are employed by a partner organization or a similar arrangement?

No, USAID will not reconsider this requirement because it helps mitigate performance risk. Having key personnel from the subcontractor creates an improper relationship with USAID since contractually there is no privity of contract between USAID and subcontractors.

Page 24, Section F.7.2 Reports and Plans Submission

Schedule, Table - Delivery Dates.

How flexible are the delivery dates for reports and plan submissions, particularly the reporting deliverables requiring government partnership?

Please review Section

F.6.1 (d) of the RFP on page 23.

Page 21, Section F.5. Key Personnel, “All Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor and dedicate

100% level of effort to this activity.”

Can these be reconsidered as either non-key personnel or eligible for hiring under a sub, especially the HMIS Advisor role?

See response #88.

Section F.5(g) states “All Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor and dedicate 100% level of effort to this activity.”

Highly qualified key personnel candidates may be available who are employees of offeror subcontractors. In the interest of providing the most highly-qualified key personnel potentially available, please reconsider this requirement.

See response #88.

Section F.7.2: (a) Please confirm that the time periods specified in “days” are calendar days. (b) Are all deliverables listed in this section required to be submitted to the

Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and thus

508 compliant? If not, please indicate which deliverables are to be submitted to the DEC so offerors can accurately estimate the costs for preparation of 508 compliant documents/files.

Confirmed, the days are calendar days.

Please refer to Section

F.7. or AIDAR clause

752.7005 for deliverables that need to be submitted to DEC.

Can USAID please clarify whether or not the Annual Work

Plan and Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plans are to be included as an annex to the Technical proposal?

The table listed in Section F.7.2 on p. 24 indicates that the

Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan is ‘due with Annual work-plan as an annex’ however neither the

Annual Work Plan nor Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and

Learning Plans are included in the Technical Proposal submission items listed in Section L.6 on beginning on page

109.

The Annual Work Plan and Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Plans are NOT to be included as annex to the technical proposal.

The language on page 24 simply means that the

AMELP is an annex in the annual work plan (it is submitted as part of the annual work plan as an annex).

On page 28 of the solicitation, point 1, the RFP states that all key personnel must be hired/employed by prime contractor. Would it be acceptable if a major subcontractor

(as defined on page 4 of the solicitation) were to hire the key personnel but ensure they are physically located with the prime and seamlessly integrated into the overall team structure?

See response #88.

The RFP cover letter emphasizes “USAID encourages participation to the maximum extent possible of small business concerns…” Restricting Key Personnel to be hired only by the prime limits the ability of offerors to maximize the participation of strong, capable small business concerns.

Would the Mission consider changing its requirement that all key personnel be supplied by the prime contractor?

See response #88.

Page 26 of the RFP, Report No.15 defines that the DHIS2 system will be interoperable with other existing stand-alone component systems by month 24 of the contract. In our experience, interoperability is an ongoing issue that evolves due to changes in technology and systems. Would the Mission consider requesting a workplan by month three of the award and regular quarterly updates with milestones to more effectively address the full range of interoperability issues that the activity might face during the period of performance?

USAID would consider this approach, which would be further developed during activity work planning. However, the deliverables will not change.

97 Does the Mission have a current Learning Agenda? If so, will

USAID/Zambia please consider sharing it with the offerors?

Not at this time.

Does the Mission have an approved PMP? If so, will

USAID/Zambia please consider sharing it with offerors, so we can better understand your current measurement requirements?

Not at this time.

Section F.5.g, Key Personnel, page 21 of the RFP, states: “All

Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor and dedicate 100% level of effort to this activity.”

Furthermore, Section F.7.2.1, Key Personnel, page 28, states: “All Key Personnel must be hired/employed by prime contractor, relocated to Zambia (if Expat/TCN hire), and ready for activity implementation (i.e. reporting for duty).”

Would USAID consider allowing one key personnel (KP) to be employed by a major subcontractor when the role of the

KP is directly related to the “key element of the SOW” that the major subcontractor will be implementing, so long as it is clear that the KP will also work under the direction of the prime contractor as part of an integrated team?

See response #88.

USAID/Zambia added the key personnel position of Senior

Knowledge Management, Data Demand and Use Adviser to the final solicitation signaling the importance of knowledge management and data demand and use to the Evidence for

Health project. However, the role of data use and dissemination is less prominent in the description of tasks

(see references to data use and dissemination in R 1.1, R

1.3, R 3.1, and R 3.2). Knowledge management is only referenced in the description for the Senior Knowledge

Management, Data Demand and Use Adviser and not in any of the result or task descriptions.

Could USAID please expand on its expectations of knowledge management and data demand and use in the project, including those described under Result 2?

It is expected that knowledge management and data demand and use will be embedded throughout the award and not restricted to any specific tasks.

Would USAID consider that the subcontractors can be permitted to have some of key personnel positions, rather than the prime having them all. This would engage subcontractors more into the project while also helping

USAID to meet their small business subcontracting requirements and goals.

See response #88

SECTION H

Section H.33: To attract high-quality junior researchers to participate in contract activities, will USAID consider, on a case-by-case basis, requests to allow publication of the work product of such junior researchers in peer-reviewed academic journals and similar research dissemination channels?

H.14. Information System Security states that “This

Contract may require Information Technology (IT) resources or services in which a Contractor must have physical or electronic access to USAID’s sensitive information contained in unclassified systems that directly support the Agency’s mission.”

Given the context and nature of this contract, does USAID anticipate that such “physical or electronic access to

USAID’s sensitive information” will be involved? If so, under which task(s) and what type(s) of sensitive USAID information are expected to be involved?

No.

“Section H.16 of the RFP specifies requirements for the use of cloud computing under the contract. Please confirm the following:

(a) Data collected by the Ministry of Health and stored on

HMIS or other information systems controlled and maintained by the Government of Zambia, its

Ministries/agencies, or their agents are not subject to these requirements (as they are not under the control of the

Contractor).

(b) Any data either generated by the Contractor, provided to the Contractor by USAID or the Ministry of Health that is not stored on or transmitted via any cloud-based service is not subject to subsections (g), (h), (i), and (l) relating to cloud computing.

a) Confirmed.

b) Confirmed, however, all other applicable ‘Rights in Data’ clauses still apply. See section I of the solicitation.

Section H.7 states “Direct compensation of the

Contractor's personnel will be in accordance with the

Contractor's established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.”

Section H.8(d) states “One annual salary increase not more than 5% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding the maximum salary rate described above may be granted only with the advance written approval of the contracting officer.” (a) Where Contractor employees who are not full-time staff on the contract have annual salary adjustments that follow a calendar-based schedule (for example, effective January 1 each year), please confirm that

Approval will be required for increments that are completed prior to a 12 month period and/or exceeding 5%.

Section H.7 applies and these adjustments will be allowable as the annual adjustment under the contract, even if the initial adjustment occurs before 12 months from the employee’s initial service under the contract. (b) If so, please clarify if such calendar-based adjustments based on the Contractor’s policies and practices need to be approved by CO in all instances or only if they exceed 5%.

On Page 44, Section H.8, Paragraph (f), Note (2) states: “A five (5) day workweek is authorized for this Contract” Could

USAID kindly confirm if the offeror could propose 6-day work week for STTA in the field?

Confirmed. However, during implementation, contractor will be expected to obtain CO approval for STTA to work six day/week.

For Sec. H.9 WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE

(DEFENSE BASE ACT (DBA) INSURANCE FOR 2015-

2020, please confirm that the references to base and option periods relate to USAID’s DBA insurance contract with

AWAC, and are not meant to imply a base plus option contract structure for the subject solicitation.

Confirmed.

Section H.33, page 66, the RFP states that eligibility requirements for junior Zambian researchers under Task

3.2.2 “include, but are not limited to, Zambian citizen

PhD...” Would USAID consider broadening the academic eligibility requirements to include Zambian citizens who are

Master’s Degree candidates in public health, medicines, pediatrics, internal medicine, surgery, obstetrics and other applicable health fields?

USAID will expand the eligibility to PhD candidates and those who have completed doctorates within the previous three years.

SECTION I

Section I.8, Page 78. The RFP section I.8 includes FAR

Clause 52.229-8 Taxes –Foreign Cost Reimbursement

Contracts. Please confirm if the resultant contract will be exempted from local taxes and duties in Zambia (for US and local teaming partners and their personnel).

See response # 14.

We respectfully request that USAID incorporate FAR

52.244-2, Alternate I (June 2007) in sections H and I to accommodate offerors who have a Federally Approved

Purchasing System.

Section I has been updated to include the missing clauses. See amendment #1

SECTION J

Attachment J.7 provides the schedule for the Local

Compensation Plan (LCP). However, there is no descriptive information that relates the FSN salary bands with positions, tasks, education, and experience criteria. Please provide this descriptive information so offerors may appropriately apply the LCP to proposed local staff positions.

USAID will not provide descriptive information that relates to FSN salary bands with positions, tasks, education, and experience criteria.

Offerors are expected to have existing HR policies.

In that same section, on page 3 of the USAID small business sub-contracting plan template (attachment J.9), does USAID fill out this information or does the potential contractor when it completes the plan?

The offeror/contractor completes the plan..

Could the technical page limit be increased to 20 pages?

There are a large number of tasks for this project and it would be very difficult to explain them in 15 pages.

The page limit has been increased to 20 pages.

See amendment #1.

In reference to Attachment J.12_Instructions for Oral

Discussions, Could USAID provide more information on the anticipated oral discussions to help applicants prepare in advance?

a. Will presenting via video conference be an option?

b. Will the 60-minute presentation include a question and answer portion?

c. Will supplemental material/visual aids, such as a PPT slide deck, be permitted or required. If so, will there be a limit on length, such as the number of slides?

Please review Attachment

J.12. Oral discussions will be conducted for selected offerors and as stated the attachment:

“additional/alternate instructions may be provided to the selected participants in their notification letter.”

SECTION L

Will USAID please confirm if a Cover Page, Table of

Contents and Acronym List would be allowed and excluded from the 15 page count?

Confirmed. Additional language has been added to this section of the solicitation.

See amendment #1.

Section L.6, Page 109. Can USAID please clarify if the 15 page limit of the technical proposal is limited only to addressing the Problem Statement Response /Technical

Understanding? Also, would USAID consider allowing additional 2-3 pages for providing narrative supporting our key personnel, management plan, and institutional capacity, not subjected to the 15 page limit?

The page limit of the technical proposal is limited only to addressing the Problem Statement

Response /Technical

Understanding.

Please refer to Section L.6

(b). Key personnel, management plan, and institutional capacity are required to be submitted as annexes.

Will USAID please confirm if additional annexes to support the response to the Technical Understanding are allowable?

No additional annexes are permitted outside of those listed in the RFP.

Will USAID please confirm that no narrative is required for the Key Personnel, Management Approach and Institutional

Capacity, and Past Performance in the 15 pages limit?

See response #116 above.

Page 109 L.6 (b) says: "major subs are subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed 20% of the Offeror’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the

See response #15 above.

SOW." We would appreciate a clearer definition of what constitutes “a key element of the SOW.”

Page 110 L.6.1 states "Please provide a situational analysis of the Zambian context that identifies the opportunities and challenges that may affect the implementation and execution of Section C of the RFP." Please clarify whether USAID expects the specifics and details of the implementation and execution of each task in Section C to be addressed in the essay, as is typically done in a proposal?

USAID expects offerors to make a determination of what is contained in the responses as long as it addresses the problem statement and is within the page limit.

Section L.6.2: Please clarify if any minimum or maximum number of references for key personnel are to be provided.

Further, would USAID consider accepting references of professional contacts within the last five (5) instead of three years?

The language has been updated in the RFP. See amendment #1.

Section L.6(b) states, in the list of annexes to the technical proposals, “Organizational Chart(s)/Organograms - two (2) pages (see requirement L.6.3)”. Section L.6.3 requires submission of an organogram, staffing plan, and information on organizational capacity. Please confirm that the 2-page limit specified in L.6(b) applies only to the organogram and that there is not page limit for addressing the other requirements of L.6.3, as it does not seem possible to fully address these requirements in only 2 pages.

Confirmed. Only the

Organizational Chart(s)/

Organograms are limited to two pages.

Section L.6.4(1) states “It [past performance] must consist of implementing of health systems strengthening projects with measurable health outcomes in Zambia, Southern

Africa, sub-Saharan Africa or South-East Asia.” Please confirm that this specific past performance requirement must be satisfied across an offeror’s proposed consortium, but that not all PPIs need be limited to this specific subset of relevant projects.

Confirmed.

Section L.7.4: Our organization’s policy manual currently includes more than 80 distinct policy documents.