72061122R00002 PASCO Questions and Answers_Amendment 1.pdf

72061122R00002 PASCO Questions and Answers January 14, 2022

# Question Answer

1. Can USAID please confirm by Thursday January 13th when the full answers to all questions will be published.

No.

2. In order to create a level playing field in this procurement process and to facilitate accurate technical and financial proposals, all bidders will need access to key datasets to inform proposal development in both phases of the submission. Can USAID please provide the following:

a. Full list of all regional distribution centers, hospitals, health facilities and any other relevant delivery points in Zambia.

This data should include GPS co-ordinates and should clearly identify those facilities which are currently being covered under the GHSC-PSM program. (see question 3 below)

b. Monthly cost of the 3PL services currently being contracted through GHSC-

PSM

c. For a 12-month period, details of each delivery trip completed (including origin and delivery points) and the volumes or weight of product delivered on each trip

a. No, since offerors must identify the number of sites in the proposal and they can be anywhere in Zambia.

b. Yes, we have included this.

c. Yes, we have included this.

3. We note that “The Contractor must initially cover regional distribution centers, high volume facilities, and selected health facilities including the approximately 1,100 facilities currently being covered under the 3PL contract managed by GHSC-PSM” (RFP page 9). We understand this to be the

That, plus all other requirements of this contract.

scope that the contractor must take over no later than month 6 of the contract (also referenced on Page 9). Please confirm.

4. Will there be opportunities for further questions during Phase Two bid preparation period? Will USAID be providing any additional information to bidders for Phase Two proposal?

We have changed this to a regular procurement process. We have allowed for another round of questions now.

5. Bidders are required to present the number of facilities that the contractor will cover in each year of the contract. Will there be an opportunity to revise this part of our proposal at Phase 2, or post award?

Pre-award, no. Post-award, that information is included in the RFP and will be governed by applicable regulations.

6. Can USAID confirm that the PASCO contractor will distribute all categories of product from ZAMMSA or will the activity be restricted to USG funded products?

PASCO will not be restricted to transport only USG funded commodities. PASCO will be restricted to distribute only the commodity categories that fall under USAID’s programmatic purview (HIV, TB, MCH, FP, Malaria).

7. With reference to the performance targets for activity 1 presented on page 10 of the RFP, please provide the performance data for the existing 3PL operators over the last 12 months or more

Yes, we have included this.

8. We note USAID’s wishes for a successful transition of PASCO activities to ZAMMSA and other government partners at the end of PASCO contract. Based on our experience in private sector engagement in health in Zambia and many other LMICs over several years, we strongly believe that working with the logistics industry on market development activities is vitally important to achieving PASCO outcomes.

Can USAID confirm that this type of activity is considered in scope for the PASCO contractor?

This is dependent on each individual offeror’s approach.

9. Will the PASCO prime contractor be excluded from future supply chain systems

That will be determined if and when requirements are developed for any strengthening TA work in the health sector in Zambia while the PASCO contract is active?

potential mechanism.

10. Will the contractor selected for the Control Tower contract under the Next Generation supply chain awards be eligible as a PASCO prime contractor?

There is no contractor selected.

Determination of that, in terms of an organization conflict of interest, will be made on a case-by-case basis.

11. Will the contractor selected for the In Country Logistics contract under the Next Generation supply chain awards be eligible as a PASCO prime contractor?

There is no contractor selected.

Determination of that, in terms of an organization conflict of interest, will be made on a case-by-case basis.

12. F.9 pg 28 notes the COP must have the ability to speak for and bind the Contractor. Please clarify what is meant by the COP being able to bind the Contractor. Does this refer to both programmatic and contractual decisions?

Yes.

13. Please clarify the organization of the Phase Two Technical Proposal. Section L.7 states the required order of all components but does not indicate where the Draft Commodity Security Risk Management Plan should be included.

Thank you. We have corrected that section.

14. May the Draft Commodity Security Risk Management Plan be included as an Annex that is excluded from the Two Technical Proposal 25-page limit?

No.

15. May Offerors include the organogram as an Annex to the technical (exclusive of the 25-page limit)?

No.

16. May Offerors revise their Phase One Proposal during the Phase Two proposal submission? Or must offerors maintain their initial Technical Approach and include those 15 pages within the overall 25-page Phase Two Technical Proposal?

No. The Phase I submission can’t be changed in Phase II and is not submitted again as part of the Phase II proposal.

17. Are there mandated minimum requirements for the Chief of Party and Commodity Security and Risk Management

We have updated Section F.9 for clarity. Please review Section L.7.

Officer key personnel positions? Or may Offerors determine these minimum requirements?

18. May Offerors include a Cover Page, Cover Letter, Acronym List and Table of Contents with the Phase One Proposal? If yes, may these be excluded from the 15-page limit?

Yes, but they count towards the page limitation.

19. Do the Cover Page, Cover Letter and Executive Summary and Table of Contents that are required components of the Phase Two Technical Proposal count towards the 25-page limit?

Yes.

20. May Offerors include an Acronym List in the Phase Two Technical Proposal? If yes, may this be excluded from the 25-page limit?

Yes, but it counts towards the page limitation.

21. Page 7: The RFP states that the “Contractor must...identify technical assistance and management components of the PASCO activities that can be transitioned and supported to enhance country ownership and long-term sustainability.” and that other stakeholders will “Provide TA to ZAMMSA…” Please clarify what technical assistance (TA) role the PASCO Contractor will have with regards to ZAMMSA or GRZ and, if any, what the division of labor for TA between the Supply Chain Technical Assistance and In-Country Logistics Implementing Partners and the PASCO Contractor will be.

The Contractor only provides the technical assistance required per Section C.

22. Page 9: The RFP states that the number of facilities may expand during the period of performance and that any additional costs beyond the TEC will be considered a cost overrun. Please clarify how the Contractor is supposed to accommodate these extra costs if they are considered an ‘overrun’.

As they would any other cost reimbursement contract. The Contractor will still be reimbursed allowable costs and should the ceiling need to be increased as a result of this, then USAID will do so should it determine that the additional facilities are needed.

23. Page 10: For the results for Activity 1, the on time and in full indicators are dependent on the orders being packed in full and made available on time by ZAMMSA. This is not included as an assumption as C.8 Assumptions. Will USAID add this as an assumption or should the Contractor include this as an additional assumption or risk?

We have adjusted the targets downward to reflect the risks involved.

Offerors must price in the remaining risk to meet these targets that are tied to the fee. The assumptions are only there as an FYI and are not binding.

24. Page 10, Activity 2.2: There is an implication that the Contractor will use existing GRZ systems for all track-and-trace aspects of the service. Please clarify further what systems the Contractor will be expected to use, how the Contractor will be expected to interface with them, and what system capabilities the Contractor will be expected to provide.

Warehouse Expert (WMS) System, Module Delivery Expert, Model 2020There is an electronic proof of delivery (ePOD) which will be interfaced with the central warehouse management system (WMS) in the central medical stores (ZAMMSA). This system will be maintained by the GRZ, though the Contractor must still comply with the requirements in Section C.

25. Page 10, Activity 2.3: Please clarify what types of activities the Contractor will be expected to undertake to improve existing GRZ electronic systems and what the role of the Contractor will be in relation to the existing GRZ electronic systems owners and service providers.

This is for the offerors to potentially propose.

26. Page 12, C.9 Working with GRZ: The RFP states, “As this public-private business relationship grows and develops, the 3PL provider must aim to professionalize the medical commodity distribution systems as much as possible, applying appropriate and customized private sector best practices.”

Please clarify who the 3PL provider is in this case and if the scope of professionalization efforts will be primarily through collaboration in the provision of services or if there will be a technical assistance role in building the capacity of GRZ counterparts and systems.

The Offeror is/or will be the 3PL provider in this case. The scope of professionalism efforts will primarily be through /collaboration in the provision of services.

27. Page 13, C.12: Climate Risk Management It is not and this has been removed.

under illustrative risks and next steps, the RFP includes “Training of Health Providers on climate change adaptation and preparedness strategy”. Please clarify if training of Health Providers is envisioned as part of the scope of this contract.

28. Page 104, L.6 Phase One: There is a requirement to submit a completed table from Section C.6 for the number of facilities to be covered each year. In C.6, the only guidance given is the number of facilities currently being serviced with an indication that more may be added. Please provide more information on how to complete this table and what assumptions the Contractor should make on the potential numbers of facilities to be added and on what schedule.

This is for the offeror to propose.

Guidance is provided in Section C and L.

29.

Page 25, Section F.6: Will Fixed Fee payments be made for successful achievement of results and acceptance of deliverables independent of invoicing for actual costs?

Yes.

30. Page 28, Section F.9: Are there any minimum qualification requirements proposed by USAID for the Chief of Party and the Commodity Security and Risk Management Officer?

Please see question #17.

31. Page 106, Section L.8.2: Will USAID provide a separate Section B for contractors to fill out, or should contractors extract those pages from the RFP? Also, if contractors are to complete Sections B.3(c)-(d), could USAID provide guidance on the percentage to be obligated and the duration?

Good catch. We have amended Section L.8.2 (now L.7.2) so you can provide only the specific figures we need.

32. As the Contractor transitions the current 3PL activity managed by GHSC-PSM to this contract, will the Contractor be expected

This is up to the Contractor.

to assume currently-held subcontracts with in-country distribution firms, or to solicit new subcontractors to assume this work?

33. Given the need to include subcontracted distribution costs in any budget for Phase 2, could USAID provide guidance on how those costs should be estimated and if contractors could have access to current costs through GHSC-PSM?

This is up to the offerors to propose given the requirements. Please see question #2.

34. Would USAID further clarify the commodity groups within the scope of this activity? Will the program service all product groups discussed in the background section (HIV, malaria, FP, and MCH)? Will the PASCO activity be expected to support ITN distribution for both routine and mass distribution? Are there any commodity groups that should be excluded or limited to routes for which the primary product groups are already being distributed? Will any COVID-19 related funding streams support this activity?

a. Please see question #6.

b. Please see question #6.

c. No.

d. No.

e. No.

35. Pg. 9 states that “Facilities can be located anywhere in Zambia.” Would USAID clarify if this is inclusive of facilities currently served by the Choma, Chipata, and Kabompo hubs for which distribution is supported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria or if the facilities serviced by these hubs should be excluded in the proposal?

We believe the sentence is self-explanatory.

36. Considering that distribution planning requires heavy engagement in order processing and other upstream warehouse activities that directly impact dispatch optimization, how does USAID envision the delegation of responsibilities between PASCO and GHSCPSM and future Supply Chain Technical Assistance and In-Country Logistics Implementing Partners?

The Contractor is responsible for the requirements outlined in Section C.

37. Would USAID consider working alongside the PASCO awardee to define more specific and nuanced results for Activity 1 and Activity 2 through which to manage performance and issue fee (i.e., inclusive of applicable numerators/denominators, collection methodology, collection frequency)? This would enable USAID to more effectively manage the contractor and more closely align with the operating environment.

No.

38. Section C.6 page 9 includes a table for number of facilities that the contractor must reach each year. This section also states, “the number of facilities may expand further during the period of performance based on the needs of the Ministry of Health, though this will not be considered “new work” and will be handled as a cost overrun if the total estimated cost of the contract must be increased. The specific locations must be selected in consultation with MOH, USG, and other key stakeholders and must be approved in advance by the USAID COR as part of the annual work plan process.” We have the following questions:

a. Would USAID further explain how “cost overruns” will be handled?

Specifically, if the contractors’ costs increase above the original total estimated cost as a result of expanded number of facilities, will the contract ceiling be modified to accommodate the increased costs?

b. If it is expected that contractors accommodate an expanded number of facilities during the period of performance within the original total estimated cost, we kindly ask USAID to reconsider. If the number of facilities is expanded during the period of performance in a manner that

a. Please see question #22.

b. Please see question #22.

c. This is up to the offeror when considering how many to propose in the table in Section C.6.

results in a material impact on the total estimated cost, we ask USAID to allow for an equitable adjustment in either the estimated cost, delivery, or completion schedule and/or the amount of fixed fee, per the FAR 52.243-2 (Alternate I) Changes Cost Reimbursement referenced in Section B.7 of the RFP.

c. Can USAID further clarify how offeror should consider defining facilities noting that hubs and high-volume facilities are serviced more frequently and with larger vehicles, costs may not directly correlate with the number of facilities serviced?

39. Section F.6 footnote 1 states, “Activity 1 Results are also tied to the number of facilities covered for the corresponding contract year per the table in Section C.6.

The Contractor must achieve the Activity 1 Results for that number of facilities, or higher, to be eligible for the fee.” It our understanding that CPFF completion type contracts are structured to incentivize the Contractor to meet certain targets while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these targets.

This understanding also aligns with the adaptive management language USAID has included in Section B.7 of the RFP. We therefore request that the following language be added to this footnote as follows: “If the CO determines any Activity 1 Results were not achieved based on factors outside of the manageable control of the Contractor, any unpaid fee can be reallocated among existing or new deliverables.”

No. However, we have added some additional language in Section F.6.

40. Section F.6 footnote 2 states, “…The Contractor must achieve these results within the stated year to be paid the associated fee. Fee for these results does not roll over to future years and is forfeit if the result is not achieved during the stated

No.

time period.” It is our understanding that fee under a CPFF completion type contract can only be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed and cannot be forfeited before the period of performance of the contract has ended, or because a result is not completed within a certain project year. To ensure contractors remain eligible to earn the entire fixed fee upon completion of the contract we request that the above quoted footnote 2 language be edited as follows, “The Contractor must achieve these results within the stated year to be paid the associated fee, unless the results were not achieved based on factors outside of the manageable control of the Contractor.

Any unpaid fee can be reallocated among existing or new deliverables.”

41. Section F.6 footnote 6 states, “If the Contractor does not meet the results within the stated period, the contract will be modified to reduce the total estimated costs downward by the associated fee amount.” It our understanding that CPFF completion type contracts are structured to incentivize the Contractor to meet certain targets while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these targets. This understanding also aligns with the adaptive management language USAID has included in Section B.7 of the RFP. We therefore request the footnote language be revised as follows: “If the Contractor does not meet the results within the stated period of performance, the scope of work and fixed fee may be adjusted accordingly.”

No.

42. Can USAID clarify if the BIDDER is required to formally acknowledge our intention to bid? If yes, please advise the method.

They are not required to do so.

43. How does this tender fit in with the Next generation global ICL tender to be released anytime by USAID DC?

It doesn’t.

44. Will USAID release a separate tenders for Technical Assistance in Zambia? If yes, can you please provide the timelines for the intended release and the scope of the TA tender?

We do not have that information at this time.

45. Can USAID provide estimate volumes and/or any data that could assist the BIDDER in preparation of Phase 2 of the tender response?

No.

46 Can USAID advise if performance incentives are envisaged under the contract and if it is ok to propose some in the offer?

Other than what is already there, no.

47. Can USAID clarify the status of POD integration? The BIDDER is trying to establish whether we will be able to interface with ZAMMSA’s system.

ePOD is currently under pilot. Please see question #24.

48. Can USAID clarify if the BIDDER is allowed to optimize the route and deliveries? Or is it under ZAMSAR’s full control?

Please see Activity 1.2.

49. Does USAID intend to organize a call to share the questions and answers with everyone?

No, but questions and answers will be published along with Amendment 1.

50. Can USAID share data about number of deliveries for the last 12 month (weight/frequency per facility) or will this info be shared after phase one?

Please see question #2.

51. Can USAID clarify the timeline for the transition of services between GHSC-PSM and contractor? C.6 objectives and requirement states “all services must transition … within 6 months of contract award” but Activity I and L.6 speak to identifying the number of facilities the contractor must cover per year.

We believe this is clear, 6 months.

52. For more accurate pricing, can USAID No.

provide details of: the number of health facilities, expected distances covered in km per health facility and per district, and estimated cubic meters. Please also specify the type of products to be handled, and the % of volume / quantity they represent.

53. Can USAID clarify if a temperature-controlled supply chain is required? If yes, please indicate associated volumes per health facility and per district.

It may be required. Offerors must consider this when providing the number of sites in Section C.6.

54. Can USAID clarify if there is any packaging requirement especially for emergency and temperature-controlled supply chain?

Please see question #53 and Section C.6.

55. Can USAID confirm if this project is within the scope of the US Regulation #216?

Yes.

56. Section B.2. Contract Type and Services.

Can Prime Contractor propose a different contract type for its subcontractor(s), which do not have approved negotiated indirect cost rates? And, would USAID consider approving for example a consent to a Time & Materials subcontract?

Yes, prime offerors can propose whatever subcontract type they consider appropriate. Consent will be considered depending on the individual circumstances.

57. Section C.5 states, “ZAMMSA, which was previously called Medical Stores Limited (MSL) before the enactment of the Act.”

Can USAID specify the Act(s) to which it is referring?

THE ZAMBIA MEDICINES AND

MEDICAL SUPPLIES AGENCY ACT,

2019 [No. 9 of 2019, 247]

58. Section C.5. Given USAID’s ongoing procurement for the Global Health Supply Chain Next Gen Comprehensive Technical Assistance IDIQ (GHSC-TA IDIQ), can USAID clarify whether it expects to procure the same and/or similar services described in section C through the GHSC- TA IDIQ once it is awarded?

No.

59. Section C.5 Might there be a risk that USAID/Zambia would consider procure the services described in this RFP through the GHSC-TA IDIQ and end this contract before the slated performance period comes to an end?

60. Section C.5 Given USAID’s anticipated procurement for GHSC-Next Gen In-country Logistics Contract (ICL), can USAID clarify whether it expects to procure the same and/or similar services described in section C through the GHSC- Next Gen ICL contract once it is awarded?

See question #58.

61. Section C.5 Might there be a risk that USAID/Zambia would consider procuring the services described in this RFP through GHSC-Next Gen ICL award and end this contract before the slated performance period comes to an end?

See question #59.

62. Section C.6 Objectives and Requirements, Page 9. When the contractor is requested to confirm the number of facilities that it expects to be able to cover per year over the existing 1,100 facilities covered by GHSC-PSM, is USAID able to confirm the locations of the additional facilities or are these only to be determined once the contract is awarded?

No. The sites may be located anywhere in Zambia.

63. Section C.6 states 100% as a measurement of success on a range of KPI’s. Such as “100% of SDPs receiving deliveries according to a planned distribution schedule”. Can USAID confirm if events outside of the Contractor’s control (possible force majeure) that prevent or disrupt distribution plans will count towards this 100% target?

We have adjusted the targets downward in recognition of these risks and to accommodate them. However, the remaining risks to meet the revised targets must be priced into the award by Offerors, including in proposing the minimum number of sites that will be covered per year.

64. Section C.6 ‘Results for Activity I’ Page 10.

What are the consequences if the contractor falls short of the 100% delivery target?

See Section F.6.

65. Section C.6 refers to ZAMRA’s Guidelines for Good Distribution Practices (GGDP)

a. To ensure a level playing field among offerors, can USAID furnish the prevailing

Here is where Offerors can find them:

https://www.zamra.co.zm/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GUIDELINES version of these guidelines. Presumably the current implementing partner of the GHSC-PSM contract and their subcontractors may have these, which could create an unfair advantage should this firm/these firms choose to compete for the award.

-ON-GOOD-DISTRIBUTION-

PRACTICES.pdf

66. Section C.11. Can USAID share with bidders the details of the separate third-party M&E contractor at this stage?

It is USAID/Zambia’s Z-MELP contract.

Contract #72061120D00001 with SoCha. SoCha is precluded from competing on this contract at all levels.

67. Per section F.9, USAID has provided the job titles, some essential responsibilities for two Key Personnel positions, the Chief of Party and the Commodity Security and Risk Management Officer. USAID has further stated that Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor and be full-time in Zambia. Might USAID reconsider and allow one or both of the to-be-proposed, full-time key personnel roles to employed by a subcontractor or subcontractors?

No.

68. Section F.10 states, “The Contractor must keep the same operating schedule as the US Embassy in Zambia.” Given the government of the republic of Zambia does not maintain the same operating schedule as the US embassy and working a full day on Friday in particular can be beneficial to project implementation, might USAID consider removing this requirement?

Similarly, for contractors that have indirect cost rates for local personnel, specifically local fringe benefit rates, maintaining the same operating schedule as USAID Zambia, especially given the US Embassy observes both US and Zambia public holidays, can cause an increase in fringe benefit rates, beyond the agreed provisional indirect cost rates for local employee fringe benefits.

Would USAID consider removing this

We have adjusted the language to state that the Contractor must operate, at a minimum, the same schedule. They can operate above and beyond this if appropriate.

language or alternatively stating explicitly that this means US Embassy hours of operation only and excludes a requirement for contractors to offer US public holidays to employees in Zambia?

69. Per AIDAR 722.170(a), cooperating country nationals should be extended the same benefits as CCN’s employed by the USAID Mission. Contractors will require the Zambia LCP in order to develop compliant local compensation plans which per Section H.3(b) contractors are required to submit to the contracting officer for approval. Can USAID please therefore provide offerors with the U.S.

Mission to Zambia’s Local Compensation Plan (LCP)?

No. However, the range for the LCP is $2,748.94 to $59,666.18 annually.

70. Section L.5 states, “Individual email size cannot exceed 5 MB.” With all of the required documents, and in particular required signed documents, it is unlikely that phase 2 proposals will be able to be developed within this size limit. Might USAID consider increasing this limit?

No.

71. Section L.7, Can USAID consider allowing an alternative font and font size for graphics, tables, and/or charts for example, Arial 9 font and specifically for the required organogram?

No.

72. Section L.8.13(b)(4)(i) states, “The justification must:” and there are no instructions about what the waiver justification must include. Can USAID please clarify what is required to justify the waiver request?

Thank you for catching that. The language has been added.

73. Can USAID kindly confirm if offerors are able to use font sizes smaller than 12-point font for tables and graphics?

74. Can USAID kindly verify if the font size and We have exempted the cover page.

type is also restricted on the cover page?

75. For Phase 1 of the submission, can USAID clarify if offerors should include a cover page, and table of contents?

This is up to the offerors, though everything counts against the page limit.

76. Can the government please clarify F.6(5)? Is it the government’s intention to reduce the cost ceiling of the contract proportionate to fee not earned? Since it is clear that the contractor will not earn fee associated with completion results if not achieved, the mechanism/rationale for reducing the total estimated cost seems unclear.

Yes.

77. F.9 & M.3 - Can USAID please clarify how it will evaluate key personnel for the 2 positions for which requirements are not specified?

This is explained in Sections L and M.

78. H.3(b)(I) – Can USAID please clarify the requirement to certify compensation policy data? Is the certification a requirement for certified cost and pricing data? If not, what is the purpose of the certification?

We’ve removed this requirement.

79. H.3(e)(2) –Would USAID kindly consider clarifying the applicability of USN salary increase limitations as applicable only to personnel hired or allocated to perform on the contract full time?

No.

80. H.3(e)(2) – Can USAID please clarify the applicability of compensation limitations to subcontractors? Normally the prime contractor cannot flow such limitations down to subcontractors, unless the subcontractor is performing on a cost reimbursement basis

We’ve added language clarifying this requirement.

81. H.3(f) – Can the USAID clarify the applicability of compensation limitations to consultants? If consultants are subcontractors procured (not hired) to provide a particular service, they are not employees paid a salary – they are paid a fee for service (purchased labor or FAR

We have adjusted this requirement.

31.205-33, not FAR 31.205-6) subject to price reasonableness determination. Salary limitations (CST and AIDAR 722.170) are not normally applicable.

[END OF Q&A RFP72061122R00002]