72061122R00002 PASCO Questions and Answers_Amendment 2.pdf

72061122R00002 PASCO Questions and Answers January 25, 2022

# Question Answer

1. The first sentence in L.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION says “Offerors must submit their Phase One Concept Note and Phase Two proposals via email to: etc.” Can we assume that this should have been modified in Amendment 1?

Thank you. The language has been updated in the solicitation.

2.

The results for Activity 2 now include the following:

● 100% of vehicles meet WHO Good Storage and Distribution Practices standards/ZAMRA guidelines, whichever is more strict

● 80% of delivery notes indicate the quantity dispatched matching the quantity received.

● 80% of delivery notes signed as received by an authorized staff member of the designated facility.

● 100% of pickups and deliveries communicated within at least 72 hours’ notice.

Having 100% for any result means that it is likely impossible for the contractor to receive the fee, as (1) the term of performance is over a period of a year, (2) “last mile” carriers can be expected to prioritize areas of focus that relate to payments over “other” contractual obligations such as vehicle guidelines, and

USAID has lowered all of the targets to 80% to reflect that there will be instances when circumstances beyond the Contractor’s control may impact achieving the result. However, offerors must price in the remaining risk for meeting these targets.

The results are interrelated. Failure to meet one requirement affects the other.

(3) communications failures can take place due power, system, and human failures. One single variance within any contract year can, according to this definition, result in the loss of the fee for that period. Is USAID willing to reconsider these two metrics?

3. RFP Section L.7.5 says “Offerors may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year,” but the years shown in Section B.6 are 2020 through 2024. Could USAID confirm that offerors should be proposing indirect ceiling rates for 2022 through 2026?

Thank you. The solicitation has been updated to reflect the correct years.

4.

The Amendment 1 guidelines for the Technical Proposal indicate a page limit of 40 pages and the Technical Proposal is to include the following:

Cover Page, Cover Letter , Executive Summary, Table of Contents, Technical Approach, Draft Commodity Security Risk Plan, and Management Approach/Plan. The Management Approach/Plan is to include the CVs of the four Key Personnel positions, as well as other information about the positions and the candidates. If proposals include CVs of 2 pages, this would require a minimum of 8 pages. Is it possible for certain required elements, such as the Draft Commodity Security Risk Plan and/or the Key Personnel CVs, to be included as Annexes rather than in the main Technical Proposal? Also, are there any other elements that are to be included in the Technical Proposal based on the Phrase at the top of page 104, “Nothing is excluded from the page limitation.”

The 40 page limit includes everything to be submitted within the technical proposal. Annexes are not allowed.

5. The amended RFP indicates that there are four Key Personnel positions, all of which need to be hired under the prime contractor. Is there an alternative to this structure if we believe that one of our partners has personnel who are more qualified for

No.

one or more of the positions, thus allowing us to offer USAID a stronger proposal / technical team?

If the answer remains “no”, can an explanation be provided?

6. The RFP indicates that the transition from the current contractor (GHSC-PSM) to the Contractor selected under this procurement should take no longer than six months. With a planned start date of September 1, 2022, will any of the contracts with the existing 3PL distribution providers continue past this date? If yes, is the selected contractor expected to continue these contracts until they formally expire? Again, if yes, can you provide the end dates for PSM’s existing 3PL agreements?

GHSC-PSM will have to continue to provide 3PL services during the six-month transition period to avoid disruption of services during the transition. The contractor will not need to continue these contracts, but they should have 3PL distribution providers in place before the transition period ends.

7. Can USAID provide additional details on ZAMMSA’s fleet, perhaps through a detailed inventory list?

No

8. What is the GRZ / MOH / ZAMMSA position on the use of private sector services for commodity distribution? Along the range from “no private sector” (0%) to “all private sector” (100%) for the distribution of public sector health commodities from central level through to last mile during the next five years, what are the government’s goals for private sector services along this range?

It is not 100% private sector led distribution, but the private sector has always played a role in distribution of health commodities. USAID expects a mix of private-sector and direct government distribution to continue.

ZAMMSA will continue with distribution services alongside 3PL providers.

9. Can USAID elaborate on its definition of emergency situations (Activities 1.2 and 1.4 on page 10)? Both facility stock-outs and emergency situations (e.g. disease outbreak, natural disaster) are mentioned within the RFP Amendment 1, yet these have notably different response procedures.

An emergency could be anything that can cause stock imbalances in the supply chain.

10. Does the Emergency distribution plan only address the distribution of the program commodities that are referred to in Question 6 above, or will it include other products such as those found in an essential medicines list? If this Plan is expected to include non-program commodities, where will Offerers obtain the information about the commodities that are needed to respond to emergency situations?

Yes, the Emergency distribution plan only addresses the distribution of the program commodities.

11. Please verify that Attachment 9 of Amendment 1 is providing dollar values for the distribution provided by GHSC-PSM on behalf of the MOH during the first 11 months of 2021. Assuming this is correct, two questions: (1) why is there such a notable change in the values from the first six months to the last five months? (2) can you provide a similar table that provides the number of deliveries that match these dollar values?

Yes, the attachment J.9 provides dollar values for distribution as well as the corresponding volumes for each month.

The change is related to how ZAMMSA utilized the 3PL services and the volumes distributed during the period under review.

12. The RFP seeks to continue the use of 3PL distribution services while strengthening the management, technical and financial capacity of ZAMMSA to manage 3PL service providers, provide similar services using their own assets, people and other resources, and develop systems and capacity to receive future funding. During this five-year program, can USAID share their expectations in terms of the maximum (as a percentage) level of 3PL services that the contractor is expected to offer?

USAID’s expectation is to have the commodities available at sites. It does not have an expectation for the percentage of 3PL services as too many variables exist to predict ZAMMSA capability and requirements in the future.

13. The Global Fund currently supports warehousing and distribution services for three hubs. Two questions:

(1) Does their funding support the distribution to all public facilities in the catchment areas of these three hubs?

(2) If not, who else is involved in the distribution of health commodities within these catchment areas, and what is the “market share” of the different service providers?

(1) Yes

14. The details of the distribution services currently provided by CHAZ under the Global Fund have not been provided. Is distribution from these three hubs specifically excluded from USAID’s objectives under this RFP? If not, please provide more information on how we are to respond to the distribution from these three hubs.

Yes. CHAZ supports distribution from the 3 hubs. While USAID does not expect there to be a need for distribution to these hubs, distribution to these hubs is not excluded from USAID’s Scope.

15. Does the Global Fund intend to continue funding the services provided by these three hubs? If no, is

Yes.

there a specified end date?

16. The response to Question 6 in the first round of questions states “PASCO will be restricted to distribute only the commodity categories that fall under USAID’s programmatic purview (HIV, TB, MCH, FP, Malaria).” Two Questions: (1) Is GHSC- PSM distributing only these same commodities now? (2) If yes, does this mean that ZAMMSA has a parallel delivery system to these (and other) sites for essential medicines and other products that are not part of these program groups?

1. Yes.

2. No, it is not a parallel delivery system. GHSC-PSM augments ZAMMSA’s delivery system to ensure deliveries of commodities under USAID’s programmatic purview

17. For past performance (p. 110), is it possible to include past performance information for projects outside of the $10,000,000 to $25,000,000 range?

No.

18. For past performance (p. 110), the RFP indicates that “offerers must not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS,” where should we indicate that those contracts should be evaluated as part of our past performance if not in Attachment 3?

You shouldn’t. We will access all relevant past performance already recorded in CPARS.

19. For past performance (p. 110), please clarify which is the Attachment 3 you are referencing, “For contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System….must use the “Past Performance Information Sheet” (included as Attachment 3) to list past performance information for itself with a cost between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000”

This has been corrected. The correct attachment is attachment J.5.

20. Could you please clarify if the past performance section includes only relevant contracts, or if grants and cooperative agreements may be submitted?

No. Grants and Cooperative Agreements may not be submitted.

21. Amendment 1 through Attachment J.8 indicates that there is a desire to align to a monthly delivery schedule for most sites, although others are weekly or quarterly. Can USAID provide any supporting documentation or criteria for the required (expected) frequency of distribution?

No. As stated, the distribution schedule will be shared with the contractor on a quarterly basis.

22. We kindly seek clarification on the instructions for preparation of L.7.7 “Past Performance Information.” The RFP states that “Offerors must

Please see question #18.

not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS.” In the event all of the Offeror’s contracts involving similar work are in CPARS, how should offerors present the list of projects to USAID for consideration? For example, should the offerors include Attachment J.5 with only the contract number completed but all other cells left blank?

23. Activity 1.1 asks the Contractor to perform modelling and data analysis as needed to assist with route optimization and cost control planning.

Would USAID clarify who the Contractor will assist to conduct route optimization and cost control planning? Or is the Contractor themselves responsible for utilizing the data it generates to conduct route optimization and cost control planning?

The contractor is responsible for utilizing existing data to perform modeling/data analysis as needed to support deliveries completed by ZAMMSA, other partners, and the Contractor.

24. Under Results for Activity 1, USAID defines on time delivery using “standard lead time.” Can USAID please define standard lead time? Or will the Contractor be required to establish a definition for standard lead time?

Standard lead time is defined as the time from pickup of commodities at ZAMMSA to delivery at the site.

Standard lead time are:

0-400 km within 24 hours;

401-1,000 km within 48 hours;

Above 1,000 km within 72 hours

25. The descriptions for Activities 2.2 and 2.3 state that “the Contractor is not authorized to design or implement any new information technology systems.” Since the contractor is not authorized to create new systems, please confirm that all the data and tracking systems referenced (ePOD, vehicle tracking, cubic volume measurements, cycle time) are currently in existence and integrated with other GRZ systems and will be made available to the Contractor for use and improvement efforts.

Yes, these systems are in existence and available for use.

26. Activity 2.4 requires the development and implementation of a Commodity Security Risk Management Plan. Please confirm that the plan should only define risks associated with the PASCO scope as they relate to the transport/distribution of commodities. Will there be a larger commodity

a. Yes although please refer to Activity 2.4.

b. Yes.

c. Yes.

d. No.

security risk management plan that captures risk throughout the entire supply chain? If so, will PASCO’s plan fit within that larger plan? If yes, is there a template or format that can be shared to ensure it aligns with the larger plan?

27. It is our understanding that USAID has several other risk management focused supply chain awards in process or recently awarded, including the Supply Chain Security Award (awarded in 2020) and the anticipated strategic risk management award. Is USAID/Zambia able to provide additional information on those awards and if/how PASCO would be required to coordinate with them on risk management activities?

No.

28. It is our understanding that many missions have completed a “risk scoring worksheet.” Has USAID/Zambia completed this worksheet and, if yes, can this be shared to inform development of the draft Commodity Security Risk Management Plan required in the PASCO submission?

We are unable to share this document.

29. Under Results for Activity 2 it says “100% of pickups and deliveries communicated within at least 24 hours’ notice.” Can USAID define a “pickup”?

Commodities that have been packed that are accepted and taken from ZAMMSA by the Contractor for distribution.

30. We have noted that USAID has included some results that are not within the manageable control of a project with this scope. Would USAID consider adjustment of these metrics to enable more effective and accurate management of the PASCO implementing partner?

See table after the list of questions.

No. Activity 1.2 requires collaborating with ZAMMSA to develop a distribution plan and adhere to standard operating procedures. This would include ensuring ZAMMSA takes responsibility for timely picking and packing, and USAID feels this is within the manageable control of the Contractor. We have also adjusted the targets to accommodate this.

For standard lead times, see the answer to question #24

31. Section F.6 (2) states that fee tied to results achievement will be forfeited if all results are not achieved by the end of that year. However, Section C contains multiple results for each activity.

Activity 1 contains three results and Activity 2 contains four results. Would USAID consider assigning a weight/percentage/score to each result to allow the Contractor to recover fee on results achieved? Otherwise, the contractor could potentially forfeit fee for results achieved.

32. Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

There is currently no waiver to allow use of FAR.52.237-9

33.

Can USAID please clarify if the 40-page technical volume limit also includes the CVs for key personnel?

The page limit is all inclusive.

34. Will offerors be expected to enter into exclusive agreements with local service providers or will qualified existing local logistics services providers (such as Taurus Partners and Marvin Motors & Transport Limited) be available to work with the successful offeror?

Yes, the existing providers will be available, but it is not required that the contractor maintain the same providers.

35. Section L.5 instructs offerors to submit a Phase One Concept Note and Phase Two proposal.

Given the amendment and elimination of a phase approach, should offerors assume that no Concept Note is now required?

Thank you. The Solicitation has been updated.

36. A table for each contract year is to be incorporated Section C.6. Should offerors expect that the 1,100 facilities currently covered by GHSC-PSM constitute the minimum number of facilities to service within 6 months of the beginning of performance or within the first, second, third or fourth year?

No. There is no minimum number of facilities.

37.

USAID highlights that the ICL mission will phase to include last-mile delivery to an unarticulated

No. This is for offerors to propose per Section C.6.

number of facilities. Can, for the purposes of planning Section C.6, USAID provide a range of the number of last mile delivery destinations the offeror should expect to service per year?

38. Should offerors expect to receive any inventory dispositions (health commodities; equipment related to warehousing or distribution; vehicles; or other durable items) from GHSC-PSM?

No.

39. Should offerors expect to provide support (staff augmentation of day laborers, technical oversight, training, capacity building, equipment, equipment, etc) to ZAMMSA central or regional stores to assist with the pick, pack, and dispatch of commodities or provide receiving support to regional stores or other delivery points during distribution events (both routine and emergency)?

While the Contractor should work and collaborate with ZAMMSA to ensure that it is successfully picking, packing, and dispatching commodities for delivery per the distribution plan, no additional staff should be provided to ZAMMSA.

40.

Should offerors expect that ZAMMSA will dispatch commodities from their warehouse with appropriate palletization or break-bulk packaging?

Yes.

41. Should offerors expect to provide monetary or other support to GRZ and ZAMMSA in distributing the remaining commodities not distributed by

GHSC-PSM?

No.

42.

Should those commodities distributed by ZAMMSA be considered part of the results for Activity 2?

43. The solicitation provides insight into USAID’s desire to provide technical assistance to ZAMMSA and to provide the critical functions of in-country logistics but does not describe USAID’s broader capacity-building goals for GRZ, the 3PL marketplace, and private sector 3PL entities. Should offerors plan for these activities and, if so, what indicators, inputs/outputs, and performance criteria should influence proposed designs? Similarly, No. Please respond to the requirements of this RFP.

would investments related to such activities be reflected in the per year costs table or in a separate annex?

44.

How does USAID intend to evaluate proposed capacity building solutions and/or determine the reasonableness of cost between offerors who propose such technical assistance because it is not included in the list of expected activities or tied to fee?

Please see question #43 and please review Sections L and M of the RFP.

45.

Attachment J - How many past performance citations does USAID request?

Please review the instructions in Section L.

46. Can USAID please clarify, should past performance citations be included as a separate annex or be inclusive of the 40-page limit? Or as a standalone submitted file?

Past performance is submitted as part of the cost/business proposal.

47. Does USAID have further guidance on page limits for individual sections of the proposal beyond the 40 pages identified as the upper limit of the technical portion of the proposal?

No.

48. USAID references attachment 3 below, can USAID kindly confirm that the name of the attachment is labeled as “Attachment J.5 Past Performance Information Sheet” see below for reference:

For contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), offerors (including all partners of a joint venture) and major subcontractors (those subcontractors valued at 20% or more of the contract value) must use the “Past Performance Information Sheet” (included as Attachment 3) to list past performance information for itself with a cost between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000, with a period of performance falling within the last three years, and involving similar work as in Section C. All applicable fields in Attachment 3 must be completed. Offerors must not submit past performance information for contracts in CPARS.

Please refer to #19 above.

49. Q 63 of the Clarification Questions: 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?’

A: 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

Follow up question:

Given the proposed reduction in the above KPI please can you:

a) Confirm how a reduction in the proposed KPI from 100 – 80% is sufficient to cover any associated risks and specifically with the contents of any packages that would have been packed by another party.

b) Advise the currently achieved KPI from existing program

a. As noted in the question #30, USAID feels that by working with ZAMSA, the Contractor has manageable control to ensure accurate and on-time packaging of commodities. USAID acknowledges that it cannot eliminate all risk, however, and any remaining risk to meet the revised targets must be priced into the award by Offerors.

b. KPIs for the current program are not the same as PASCO will have.

We have attached information from the current program.

50. It is stated in the revisions to the solicitations that the new date for submission is February 24, and the evaluation has switched to a more linear procurement process with one Main Phase, including additional clarification round. However, in the answer to your Clarification Question 16, you refer to a Phase II Proposal. Can you confirm there is now just ONE evaluation Phase for this solicitation, or will there be follow up stages that constitute "Phase II"?

USAID/Zambia confirms only ONE evaluation phase

51. L.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION states that Offerors Please refer to question #35 above.

must submit their Phase One Concept Note and Phase Two proposals via email. The Concept Note is referenced here but not explained.

Continuation of question 30 …

Results included in the

RFP

Bidder Comments/Concerns/Reco mmendations

Response

80% of the number of SDPs in the above table receiving deliveries according to a planned distribution schedule.

The schedule will be shared with the Contractor on a quarterly basis.

It should be noted that distribution schedule adherence is contingent on timely picking and packing which is outside of the scope of the PASCO project. We recommend that this metric be removed as it is outside of the manageable control of the PASCO program.

USAID acknowledges that picking and packing will be done by ZAMMSA. However, collaborating with ZAMMSA to develop a distribution plan and adhere to standard operating procedures i[s part of the Scope. This would include ensuring ZAMMSA takes responsibility for timely picking and packing, and USAID feels this is within the manageable control of the Contractor. c

80% of the SDP orders delivered on time (standard lead time – actual lead time/standard lead time*100%)

"Lead time" should not include any order processing time as that is outside of the manageable control of the PASCO program.

See response to question #24.

80% of orders received in full (total number of products delivered/total number of products ordered and available

It should be noted that order fulfilment/picking, and packing is not within the scope of PASCO. Therefore, PASCO cannot be responsible for the number of products delivered.

USAID acknowledges that picking and packing will be done by ZAMMSA. However, collaborating with ZAMMSA to develop a distribution plan and adhere to standard operating procedures i[s part of the Scope. This would in-stock at time of fulfilment x 100)

We recommend that this metric be replaced with a metric that better measures the contractors risk management practices such as:

• Number of deliveries that resulted in product loss during transportation;

or

• Presence of security seals at the point of delivery include ensuring ZAMMSA takes responsibility for timely picking and packing, and USAID feels this is within the manageable control of the Contractor. Offerors must price this risk into their proposals.