Q&A RFP No. 72061720R00004.pdf

Integrated Child and Youth Development (ICYD) Activity

RFP#: 72061720R00004

Questions and Responses for RFP No. 72061720R00004:

Integrated Child and Youth Development Activity (ICYD Activity)

General

Please note the extensions to the due dates of documents as follows:

Past performance (INFORMATION ONLY) due: January 24, 2020, 4:00 pm (ET) Washington, DC

Proposals (TECHNICAL PROPOSALS ONLY) due: February 10, 2020, 4:00 pm (ET) Washington, DC

Proposals (COST PROPOSALS ONLY) due: February 18, 2020, 4:00 pm (ET) Washington, DC

1. The cover letter of the RFP states that “Offerors must e-mail question and proposals in response to this solicitation to KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov in MS Word format. No other forms of submission will be accepted.” Later in section L.6 on page

151, the RFP states that offerors “must provide proposals in compatible MS Word (or

PDF with Optical Character Recognition).” Could USAID confirm the PDF is acceptable as long as it as Optical Character Recognition?

USAID Response: Please submit all applications in MS Word format; however, if a PDF version of the proposal is submitted along with the MS Word version, it will also be accepted.

2. Are interested organizations that do not have a NICRA eligible to respond?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that organizations without a NICRA are eligible to respond. If your organization does not have a NICRA, please refer to further instructions on page 163 of the RFP.

3. Can USAID please share the anticipated start date of the project.

USAID Response: The anticipated ICYD award and implementation period will be

FY2020 to FY 2025.

4. What is the anticipated start date of the award?

USAID Response: ~Q4 FY2020

5. What is the anticipated RFP release date?

USAID Response: The RFP was released on December 5, 2019.

mailto:KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

Section B

6. The pricing structure of the budget indicates that the local OVC service delivery partners will be funded through subcontracts because the GUC amount is so small (page 13).

Therefore, will offerors permitted to propose second-tier grants under subcontracts.

USAID Response: No, USAID will not be issuing GUCs at the subcontract level.

7. Section B.4 'Budget' table CLIN 001 suggests no Fixed Fee is to be applied for Grants

Under Contract (GUCs). This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS

302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor.

Additionally, the statutory underpinnings of fixed fee at 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC

254(b) discusses fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given these factors, we respectfully request that

USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of 0 percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

USAID Response: Fixed fee may be allowable under GUCs if they are consistent with the requirements established in FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.8.

Section C

8. Could USAID clarify the target age group for ICYD beneficiaries?

USAID Response: Target age groups will vary for different components of ICYD. Basic

Education resources will target children and youth of school-going age, both in- and out-of-school. PEPFAR resources will target children and youth ages 0-17, along with their caregivers, for OVC programming and adolescent girls and young women ages 10-24 for

DREAMS programming.

9. How does the Mission define Children and Youth? (Age specific)

USAID Response: See question #8

10. Page 19 of RFP stipulates that ICYD will apply DREAMS initiative approaches to address the unique challenges that AGYW face, how is AGYW defined? (is this 10 – 24, 10 – 29 or 15 – 29?)

USAID Response: See question #8

11. Given that the ICYD contract will have a two-year implementation period with three option years, how does USAID envision the process and timing of transition of current

CDC and DOD responsibilities for beneficiary care? Is there a timeline for closure of non-USAID PEPFAR IP and mechanisms?

USAID Response: Refer to page 20 of the RFP. At present, USAID, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Defense (DOD), are the three agencies responsible for PEPFAR/OVC service delivery in Uganda. Gradually, from 2020 to 2023, the full PEPFAR/Uganda OVC portfolio shall transition to USAID.

CDC and DOD beneficiaries are expected to be transitioned over a period of 2-3 years from award date.

12. On page 22 under Task 3, the RFP states that within OVC services, linkages and coordination with clinical services should be in line with “an approved screening tool”.

Would USAID clarify or share this approved screening tool?

USAID Response: Approved OVC screening tools are available here:

http://ovcmis.mglsd.go.ug/toolsDashboard.php?linkvar=Data%20Collection%20Tools&&actio n=Data%20Collection%20Tools.

Offerors should also note that PEPFAR/Uganda is in the process of developing a

Uganda-specific screening tool. The successful Offeror should expect to play a role in finalization of the screening tool for PEPFAR/Uganda interagency approval.

13. Page 23 of the RFP refers to PEPFAR/OVC graduation benchmarks. Is USAID in position to share these graduation benchmarks?

USAID Response: Global OVC Graduation Benchmarks are provided in Appendix F of the PEPFAR MER 2.4 guidance available at:

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PEPFAR-MER-Indicator-Reference-

Guide-Version-2.4-FY20.pdf

14. Page 23 of the RFP states that two zones will be awarded to local partners concurrently with ICYD. Can USAID please share their rationale for selecting these two zones?

USAID Response: The Southwest and East Central zones were selected based on local partner availability and capacity.

15. Page 25 of the RFP states that all USG funding PEPFAR/OVC service provision must be transitioned to USAID from CDC and DOD. Can USAID please share the rationale for this change?

USAID Response: These transitions form a part of a gradual consolidation of

PEPFAR/Uganda OVC programming under USAID.

16. Page 25 of RFP stipulates that ICYD will be responsible for facilitating the transition of beneficiaries as non-USAID PEPFAR implementing partners and mechanisms ends.

What are the timelines for these transitions? i.e. (for our planning purposes) when are these mechanisms ending?

http://ovcmis.mglsd.go.ug/toolsDashboard.php?linkvar=Data%20Collection%20Tools&&action=Data%20Collection%20Tools http://ovcmis.mglsd.go.ug/toolsDashboard.php?linkvar=Data%20Collection%20Tools&&action=Data%20Collection%20Tools https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PEPFAR-MER-Indicator-Reference-Guide-Version-2.4-FY20.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PEPFAR-MER-Indicator-Reference-Guide-Version-2.4-FY20.pdf

USAID Response: See question 11

17. Page 30 of the RFP states that regional private sector entities that meet the above definition with the substitution of the country for region? Can USAID please share their definition of region in this context? Would East Africa be considered a region?

USAID Response: In this context, USAID defines a regional entity as an organization with interest in multiple countries. An East Africa entity is an organization that operates in more than one of the countries of Ethiopia, South Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Somalia.

18. Many of the project deliverables for the LARA, SHRP, BOCY, SOCY, and ASAP

Activities (among others) are not available on the DEC, such as all annual and quarterly reports, and work plans. Could USAID please share these reports to ensure all offerors have equal access to critical background information?

USAID Response: Project deliverables for LARA, SHRP and NORC are available on the

DEC. Other project materials related to BOCY, SOCY and 4Children have recently been uploaded on the DEC. Offerors should access these reports and other related materials on the DEC.

19. Is this a SOCY/BOCY follow-on? If so, is there an end of project / summative evaluation for the activity and can we get a copy of the report? (only report available in RFP is

SOCY baseline from 2016)

USAID Response: This is a new activity that integrates USAID’s basic education and

OVC programming under one mechanism. It is not necessarily/directly a follow-on of the

SOCY and BOCY activities. Report of the mid-term evaluation of USAID’s current OVC programs are available on the DEC. See question #18 for additional information.

20. The RFP states that SHRP and LARA are ending in 2019 and 2021. Can USAID also please provide the closing dates for 4Children, BOCY and SOCY, to assist with work planning and the project timeline?

USAID Response: The current end dates for 4Children, BOCY, and SOCY are

September 2020, April 2021, and April 2021, respectively.

21. Could USAID indicate whether USAID/Uganda’s NUPAS, referenced on p. 30, is distinct from the general USAID NUPAS? If USAID/Uganda has its own version of the tool, can USAID please share with offerors?

USAID Response: USAID/Uganda does not have a separate NUPAS process from the rest of the Agency. Guidance on the NUPAS process can be found here:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/NUPAS-Guide-2016-01-

19v4.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/NUPAS-Guide-2016-01-19v4.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/NUPAS-Guide-2016-01-19v4.pdf

22. Under Tasks 1 and 2, to what extent does USAID expect that coverage of interventions to improve EGR and primary school retention will include private schools in Uganda?

USAID Response: ICYD basic education interventions are expected to be targeted at beneficiaries in the public-school system. However, per existing MOES arrangements, interested private schools on their own initiative and at their cost may access publicly available EGR products and other instructional materials, working through and with the

MOES’ Private Schools and Institutions Department.

23. Under Task 3, USAID states one of the expected results as up to four local OVC services delivery partners are transitioned to direct USAID awards. Under Section C.9 and Annex

B, it is stated that at least four local partners should be transitioned. Please clarify whether USAID expects ICYD to transition up to four or at least four local partners to their own prime awards starting in Year 3.

USAID Response: USAID expects ICYD to transition approximately four of the service delivery zones (North East, North West, West Central and Capital) to at least one local partner in each zone under their own prime award(s) starting in Year 3. This change is reflected with a revision in the RFP, Section C.5.2.3., page 24.

24. Feedback from a range of participants suggests that the Journeys package is too long and dense to complete within the very demanding school education calendar and poses challenges for attention of both learners and facilitators. May consortia propose strategies for practical consolidation of the curriculum to ensure completion and uptake?

USAID Response: Page 22 of the RFP states that ‘The Mission is currently conducting an impact evaluation of the Journeys intervention. The ICYD Activity must be responsive to the findings of this evaluation and consider the results as part of its Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) and adaptive management planning. Results are expected in early 2021.’ Evidence-based revisions to the Journeys materials and/or programmatic approach may form part of the expected adaptive management.

25. On page 23 the RFP states, “For these local firms, the ICYD Activity contractor must be the lead service provider for organizational development and technical/service delivery capacity building.” Does that mean that the prime must be the lead service provider for supporting the OD/capacity-building work of the local partners (those on the pathway to prime)? Or can USAID confirm that “ICYD Activity contractor” refers to the consortium or at least all major partners?

USAID Response: The ICYD Activity contractor will be the lead service provider for technical/service delivery capacity building of local OVC service delivery partners.

Working closely with other financial and administrative capacity strengthening partners

(including ASAP and ARMSS - as OD service providers), the ICYD Activity contractor will identify and define the scope of institutional capacity needs of local OVC service delivery partners. It is expected that the OD service providers will lead and support implementation of the institutional capacity strengthening program for local OVC service delivery partners, following agreement with the ICYD Activity contractor. Institutional capacity strengthening services under the OD service provider will establish and implement a pathway to NUPAS certification and continued institutional growth of local

OVC service providers.

26. On page 23, footnote 6, could USAID explain if the scope of the capacity strengthening for future local primes is limited to areas listed in the footnote: financial and human resources systems development, NUPAS readiness and compliance, or otherwise?

USAID Response: See question #25

27. As the NUPAS tool suggests that missions complete the fifth criterion, Technical

Evaluation Criteria (5.1). Could USAID/Uganda please share initial thinking on this evaluation criteria?

USAID Response: NUPAS is not an Evaluation Criteria of the procurement.

28. On page 23 under task 3, the RFP states that ICYD shall work with “other financial and administrative capacity building partners to support local members within ICYD [to succeed as direct primes].” Can USAID provide the names of the implementing partner

(s) and the USAID-funded project(s) that USAID/Uganda envisions supporting the above-mentioned capacity building?

USAID Response: Names of third-party implementing partners cannot be shared, at this stage and for purposes of the solicitation. Service engagement with these partners will be defined and conducted on as needed basis, depending on specific identified institutional capacity gaps/requirements of ICYD local partner organizations. See also question #25.

29. Can USAID share the role of the centrally funded ASAP program in OVC capacity building in Uganda? Or shall consortia plan and budget for 100% of capacity building support at this stage?

30. On page 24 under task 3, the RFP states that one of the expected results is for “up to four

(4) local OVC service delivery partners satisfy technical capacity requirements for direct

USAID awards.” However, in Annex B, the RFP states that service delivery zones are serviced by at least 4 local partners.

a) Can USAID confirm that four is the minimum number of local partners?

b) Can USAID clarify what it means by “technical capacity requirements for direct

USAID awards” - please confirm this beyond technical/service delivery and includes all areas covered in the NUPAS (e.g. organizational, financial capacity).

USAID Response: See question #23 and #25

31. On pages 24 and 31 under task 4, could USAID provide more detail on the expectations in years 3, 4 and 5? Page 24 of the RFP focuses on technical assistance, coordination, and quality monitoring while page 31 states that holistic organizational capacity strengthening should be completed by Year 2. May ICYD funds be programmed to provide continued assistance during years 3 through 5 to address management and financial challenges, and other non-technical areas? In our experience, many primes realize organizational capacity gaps after the full weight of a prime award has been shifted to the local organization.

Continued organizational capacity strengthening is particularly critical in Y3-5, since many of the local OVC service delivery partners will be doubling or tripling their caseload and budgets in that time period.

USAID Response: In Years 3-5, the ICYD Activity contractor will continue to be the lead service provider for technical/service delivery capacity building of local OVC service delivery partners, with an emphasis on adaptive management and evolving

PEPFAR guidance. See also question #25

32. Could USAID please confirm that the application of the NUPAS will be done by the

USAID team and not by the contractor?

USAID Response: Refer to page 30 of the RFP. The contractor should utilize the

USAID/Uganda Non-U.S. Organization Pre-award Survey (NUPAS) tool to determine what areas must be considered for local entities’ capacity building.

33. Could USAID provide more details on USAID Uganda’s plans to engage ASAP, including the specific districts and timing to work in each of the districts?

34. On page 25, USAID indicates that ICYD will facilitate case transfer to ICYD and to other partners. Could USAID provide more details on who these other providers are and what the expectations will be?

USAID Response: Case transfers will be determined in consultation with each outgoing partner. Availability and appropriateness of GOU or NGO partners to receive cases will vary according to location (and beneficiary specifics).

35. On page 26 could USAID provide more details on the expectations of the Government of

Uganda and the private sector to support social and para-social workers?

USAID Response: Page 26 of the RFP states that ‘The ICYD Activity contractor must engage the private sector and help USAID facilitate other investor and donor involvement in relieving the disproportionate dependence on U.S. government funds for the child protection and education sectors.’ Offerors are expected to propose their own strategies to lead to the expected result of ‘Increased number of social and para-social workers supported by GOU and private sector partners’.

36. The RFP targets youth, which is a critical age group in Uganda given the median age is

15.8 years. However, despite the inclusion of youth as a target group, and the youth specific objective, the RFP does not articulate specific strategic inputs for youth or youth related outcomes. Can USAID please clarify expectations on youth interventions for the

ICYD Activity?

USAID Response: Youth interventions proposed by Offerors should be aligned with the scope and objectives of ICYD Activity and fit within the respective funding source earmark requirements. Section C.6 on page 27 of the RFP also provides additional opportunities for innovative approaches that may be programmed to address youth related outcomes.

37. Could USAID confirm whether qualified Ugandan local organizations may be eligible for support to transition to PEPFAR prime service delivery awards if they are currently or have previously received direct USAID, PEPFAR, or US Government funding, e.g.

through APS mechanisms or CDC funding? We are aware of several local organizations who are receiving or have received direct USAID/CDC funding but who may still require additional technical assistance to complete NUPAS certification and be optimally prepared for direct prime awards.

USAID Response: Yes, all applicants who meet the established requirements can apply to support transition to PEPFAR prime service delivery entities.

38. Could USAID confirm that the prime contractor should submit the evidence that local transition partners satisfy criteria on page 30 at the time of submission? If so, can USAID confirm if this supporting documentation should be submitted as an annex to the technical or cost volume?

USAID Response: USAID confirms supporting documentation must be submitted as an

Annex to the technical proposal. Refer to page 30 of the RFP, which states “Note: To be considered a local organization/firm, the organization/firm must submit supporting documentation demonstrating their organization meets at least one of the three criteria.”

39. Page 31 highlights USAID’s vision for local partners to manage contracts. Could USAID please confirm that the capacity strengthening activities under ICYD should focus on systems to manage a grant, cooperative agreements, or fixed amount award – dependent on NUPAS results?

USAID Response: Yes. The ICYD Activity contractor will build the capacity of local partners to become direct funding recipients for OVC programming. The types of future local partner awards may vary.

40. Given the requirement on page 32 to collaborate with USAID-supported activities – to include RHITES – can USAID also provide the closing dates for each of the RHITES projects, to assist with planning for delivery of integrated services?

USAID Response: The current end dates for the different RHITES Activities are as follows (i) RHITES SW - November 2020; (ii) RHITES N-Acholi - December 2022; (iii)

RHITES N-Lango - February 2023; (iv) RHITES EC - September 2021; (v) RHITES E -

May 2022.

Section F

41. In Section F.4, page 49, the PEPFAR OVC indicator reporting requirements are not aligned with MER2.4. As both OVC_SERV and OVC_HIVSTAT are reported on a semi-annual basis, could USAID modify the delivery and reporting table in section F.4? Note that this table is inconsistent with section F.5 for PEPFAR reporting.

USAID Response: No. OVC_SERV and OVC_HIVSTAT are reported locally on a quarterly basis.

42. On page 50, will USAID also expect local partners to have the capacity and equipment / software to submit geodata and use HIS technology, geographic data and analysis as the prime is expected to do, and if so will that need to be budgeted under ICYD or later when local partners are themselves issued prime awards?

USAID Response: Offerors may support local partners with the required capacity and equipment through ICYD life-of-project.

43. Per FAR 19.702 paragraph (b)(3), subcontracting with small business requirements and small business subcontracting plans are not required “For contracts or contract modifications that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas...” As this contract will be performed entirely in Uganda, is it possible to remove

FAR 52.219-2 and the other small business subcontracting plan requirements?

USAID Response: Page 56, FAR 52.219-2 has been deleted from section F.4, Project

Deliverables of the RFP. This change is reflected with a revision in the RFP, see pages

55-56.

44. In Section F.8, p66, the Chief of Party if required to have “At least 15 years of progressively responsible international development work experience implementing multi-sector development programs...” Given the lack of multi-sectoral programming in the education and OVC space over the past 15 years, in order to see the strongest possible candidates, would USAID accept amending the qualification to read “At least 15 years of progressively responsible international development work experience implementing development programs, including multi-sector development programs,...”?

USAID Response: Amend the second bullet/criterion of the COP qualifications on page

66 of the RFP to read “At least 15 years of progressively responsible international development work experience implementing development programs, including multi-sector development programs, with demonstrated strong management and coordinating skills, leading interdisciplinary teams. (For candidates with a Ph.D. in public health, international education development. economics, or a related field of study, 12 years of work experience is required).” This change is reflected with a revision in the RFP, see page 66.

Section H

45. Page 77, Section H.6 states “No cash or in-kind grants will be made to the Government of

Uganda, including regional and district level authorities” and “Grants to local governments must be provided in-kind” and “NOTE: The Contractor is not authorized to provide funds to the Ugandan Government.” These three statements appear to contradict each other. Can USAID please confirm that grants of any kind to the Ugandan

Government will not be allowed under this contract?

USAID Response: USAID confirms no grants that will exchange funding will be made to the Government of Uganda.

46. Would USAID please provide a copy of the referenced IEE?

USAID Response: The referenced Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) document is procurement sensitive and cannot be shared with the public. All pertinent information to this procurement can be found in the RFP.

Section J

47. Please provide the following documents as they were referenced in the document but there was no link.

a) Past Performance Matrix - Attached - page J.4-1

b) USAID/Uganda Results Framework Attached - page J.1-1

c) USAID Policy on Diversity in the Workforce, Equal Employment Opportunity and

Non-Discrimination Attached - page J.2-1

d) Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Attached - page J.3-1

USAID Response: Please find the attachments as follows in the Attachment section of the RFP:

a) USAID/Uganda Results Framework - Attachment J.1

b) USAID Policy on Diversity in the Workforce, Equal Employment Opportunity and

Non-Discrimination Attached - Attachment J.2

c) Disclosure of Lobbying Activities - Attachment J.3

d) Past Performance - Attachment J.4

Section L

48. Pages 150-151 state: Only 11-point Times New Roman font may be used, with each page numbered consecutively at the bottom of the page. Page margins must be a minimum of one inch at the top, bottom and each side. The font used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 9 point.” Page 151-152 state:

“Offerors must use 8.5 by 11-inch (210 mm by 297 mm) paper, single spaced, Times

New Roman 11-point font, and have margins no less than one inch on the top, bottom, and both sides. Number each page consecutively, including the pages in annexes or attachments. Annexes, attachments, section headers, maps, charts, graphs, or exhibits may use a font size other than Times New Roman size 11 point, as long as they are legible without magnification.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors should follow the font and formatting guidance listed on pages 151 and 152?

USAID Response: USAID confirms offerors should follow font and formatting guidance listed on pages 151-152 of the RFP.

49. Is there any particular template or format we are supposed to follow while writing the proposal? If, Yes. Can you kindly share with us the format or Template?

USAID Response: See question #48.

50. Section L.7.1 p151 states that “Offerors must organize the Technical Proposal to follow the technical evaluation factors listed in Section M.” Section M.2, starting on p169, then lists Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4. Section L.7.1., p152 splits the full 40 pages between Factors 1 and 3; Factor 2 is represented only by Annexes C and D and Factor 4 is represented only by Annexes G and H. Could USAID please confirm that Factors 2 and 4 are only represented in Annexes C, D, G, and H, with no dedicated pages in the 40-page limit?

USAID Response: Offerors must include Key Personnel qualifications and experiences within the stipulated 40 pages. However, all resumes and/or CVs will be included as part of the Annex. Relevant Past performance information can be stated within the stipulated

40-pages; however, documentation supporting past performance experience should be included within the Annex - Attachment J.4.

51. Page 152 states, “The Technical Proposal shall not exceed 40 pages of which 25 pages must be allocated for the Strategic and Technical Approach.” Page 153 states:

a) Cover page (not to exceed 1 page).

b) Executive Summary (not to exceed 2 pages): The Executive Summary must be a succinct synthesis of the key features of the Offeror’s strategy, proposed technical approach (including expected outcomes and results), key personnel candidates, management approach and staffing plan, and past performance information

c) Table of Contents (not to exceed 2 pages) and should outline the format of the proposal.

d) Acronym List (not to exceed 2 pages)

e) Factor 1: Strategic and Technical Approach (Not to exceed 25 pages)

f) Factor 2: Key Personnel Qualifications/Experiences (annex C and D)

g) Factor 3: Management Approach and Staffing Plan (Not to exceed 15 pages)

h) Factor 4: Past Performance (No page limit, please be concise)

i) The page amounts on page 153 add up to 47 pages which exceeds the 40-page limit stipulated on page 152. Can USAID please confirm that the cover page, executive summary, table of contents and acronym list should not be counted against the 40-page limit?

USAID Response: Cover Page, Executive Summary, Table of Contents, and Acronym

List are not included in the stipulated 40-page limit.

52. Pages 151-152, General Technical Proposal Instructions. It is our understanding that the

Cover Page (not to exceed 1 page), Executive Summary (not to exceed 2 pages), Table of

Contents (not to exceed 2 pages), and Acronym List (not to exceed 2 pages), do not count against the 40-page limit for the Technical Proposal. Can USAID confirm that the 40-page limit for the Technical Proposal includes only Factor 1: Strategic and Technical

Approach (Not to exceed 25 pages) and Factor 3: Management Approach and Staffing

Plan (Not to exceed 15 pages).

USAID Response: See question #51

53. Can USAID please confirm that the cover page, executive summary, table of contents, and acronym list are not included in the page limit?

USAID Response: See question #51

54. On page 152, Section L, USAID indicates that “Maps, charts, graphs or exhibit may use a font size other than Times New Roman size 11 point, as long as they are legible without magnification”. Would USAID be amenable to using a font other than Times New

Roman for graphics, maps, charts, and exhibits provided it is legible?

USAID Response: Times New Roman is the only acceptable font for proposals.

55. Page 152, section L.7.1 states, “C. Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel (not to exceed 3 pages per resume plus not to exceed 1 page for each Position Description)”. Can USAID please confirm that position descriptions are not required, and if so, please remove the reference on page 152?

USAID Response: Resumes, including up to 1 page for the position description, may not exceed 3 pages.

56. In Section L.7.2, the RFP states on p153 that offerors should include resumes “not to exceed 3 pages per resumes plus not to exceed 1 page for each Position Description.” In the same section on p156, the RFP states that Annex C: Resumes of Proposed Key is not to exceed 15 pages, with each resume not to exceed 3 pages, but does not mention

Position Descriptions. Could USAID clarify if Offerors are to include Positions

Descriptions?

USAID Response: See question #55

57. In the description of the technical approach on page 154 section L.7.2, the RFP states that

“The Offeror’s proposal must describe a Work Plan, and a Monitoring and Evaluation

(M&E) framework for ICYD...” Could USAID confirm that the Work Plan and M&E

Framework will go in Annex A and Annex B, and therefore need not be described at length in the technical narrative section?

USAID Response: As per page 153 of the RFP, the AMELP and Annual Work Plan will go into Annexes A and B.

58. Page 153 requires that offerors include a Subcontracting Plan as Annex F to their

Technical Proposal. Because Subcontracting Plans will include cost information, would

USAID agree to move this annex to the Cost Proposal

USAID Response: The Subcontracting Plan should be a detailed account of the technical contributions any proposed subcontractor will have in the activity. All cost information for Prime and Subcontractors will be included in the Cost Proposal’s Budget Narrative and Detailed Budget.

59. Page 155, states: “Offerors must indicate the dates that each Key Personnel candidate is available to start work full-time on the contract.” Given the unknown contract start date and the fact that it is customary in Uganda to provide at least one-months’ notice when leaving a job, would USAID please consider changing this requirement to read, “Offerors must indicate that each Key Personnel candidate is available to start work full-time within 60 days of the contract start date.”

USAID Response: Yes, “Offerors must indicate that each Key Personnel candidate is available to start work full-time within 60 days of the contract start date.”

60. In Section L.7.2, p155 of the RFP states that “The Offeror must propose an Activity

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) that can track activity progress by objective for the purpose of management and technical oversight and in meeting

PEPFAR and USAID reporting requirements. The AMELP will effectively track ICYD inputs and outputs and achievement of performance outcomes over the contract’s life.”

Can USAID clarify whether the impact evaluation will be external and therefore all costs for it will not be funded through ICYD?

USAID Response: Offerors must satisfy the AMELP requirements detailed in Section

L.7.2 in the RFP. Costs for additional external evaluations will not be funded through

ICYD.

61. In Section L.7.2, p156, the RFP states that offerors are to ““...include three past performance references (including their most recent supervisor)…" for key personnel candidates. Due to the length until award, proposed key personnel may not have informed their current (i.e., most recent) supervisor of their intent to depart their position upon award. In order not to jeopardize current employment relationships, would USAID consider taking out the requirement that one of the references be a candidate’s most recent supervisor?

USAID Response: Offerors may exclude current supervisors from key personnel past performance references, though should keep in mind that this may limit USAID's ability to consider the candidate's current position for the evaluation criteria.

62. Page 157 states that the deadline for receiving Past Performance (INFORMATION

ONLY) is January 17, 2020 at 4pm (ET) Washington, DC. Please confirm that this deadline is only for Annex G: Past Performance Information.

USAID Response: Annex G: Past Performance Information only is due on January 24, 2020.

63. On page 157 under Section L.7.2 a Mobilization Plan is required as part of the technical proposal. We would like to request that offerors be permitted to include the Mobilization

Plan as an annex to the Technical Proposal and thus be added to the list of permitted annexes on page 153 under Section L.7.1.

USAID Response: Offerors must include the Mobilization Plan within the Technical

Proposal and not as part of any Annexes.

64. In Section L.7.2, p157 the RFP states that “The Offeror should include a Mobilization

Plan to describe how Key Personnel and other key professional staff will be mobilized and how it will complete the establishment of the necessary operational and implementation structures in the shortest possible time, following contract award.” Will

USAID please consider allowing Offerors to include the Mobilization Plan (required under Factor 3) as a part of Annex E, not to exceed 10 pages?

USAID Response: See question #63

65. Section L.7.1, p157 States that Annex F should be a Subcontracting Plan not to exceed 8 pages with the following instructions: “If the Offeror is other than a small business, it must submit a Subcontracting Plan. Submitted Plans must address subcontracting with small businesses, veteran owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned small business, HUB Zone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. This plan will be the equivalent of a master subcontracting plan for the overall contract.” Could USAID please consider including Subcontracting Plan in the Cost Volume, as is common?

USAID Response: See question #58

66. Section L.7.2, p157 states that “The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the Contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major Subcontractor…” Would USAID confirm if offerors must submit copies of teaming agreements for major Subcontractors? If so, could USAID confirm that this would go in the Cost Volume?

USAID Response: Yes. Teaming agreements should be submitted as part of the subcontracting plan. All cost information for Prime and Subcontractors will be included in the Cost Proposal’s Budget Narrative and Detailed Budget.

67. Section L.7.2 p157 states that “The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the Contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major Subcontractor.” It goes on to say “List in Annex G…up to five of the most recent (within the past 3 years) and relevant awards (being contracts, or orders, or cooperative agreements) for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal….” Can

USAID confirm that the Prime Offeror and each major Subcontractor can each submit up to five of their most recent and relevant awards?

USAID Response: Yes, the Prime Offeror and each major subcontractor can each submit past performance information on up to five of the most recent and relevant awards.

68. Section L.8, p162 states that “(H) Grants Under Contract – At the time of grant award, Offeror must provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee. Detailed information documenting basis for proposed costs

(including Indirect Costs) must be provided in the budget narrative.” Since USAID has provided a plug figure for GUCs, can USAID please confirm that the reference to detailed information for grantees is meant for post-award purposes?

USAID Response: USAID confirms detailed information on proposed costs for GUCs shall be submitted post-award.

69. Would USAID consider restricting offerors from signing exclusive partnership agreements with Ugandan local organizations? Permitting offerors to sign exclusive agreements with Uganda’s top OVC service delivery organizations, for example, would give an unfair advantage to one offeror over others. Moreover, exclusive teaming arrangements prevent Ugandan organizations from being a part of the proposal design with all potential offerors

USAID Response: Page 166 of the RFP states that “Offerors are not required to attach letters of exclusive partnership commitments with local partner organizations. Local partners may be included in consortium arrangements with one or more Offerors.”

USAID encourages local partner organizations to consider all opportunities.

Section M

70. Could USAID confirm that the “Key Personnel Qualifications/Experience” and “Past

Performance” sections should not include any content in the technical volume (i.e., these sections should only be addressed in the annexes. Key Personnel Qualifications/

Experience should only appear in Annexes C and D, Past Performance should only appear in Annex G and H.)

USAID Response: Resumes of proposed Key Personnel, and Letters of Commitment are required to be attached as Annexes C and D. Requirements of the Staffing Plan under

Factor 3, however, requires Offerors to justify the selection of proposed Key Personnel demonstrating how the balance of skills and expertise between technical and support staff will enhance the implementation and achievement of the Activity objectives and results proposed in the Offerors’ Strategic and Technical Approach.

71. Will all four evaluation criteria be weighted similarly (i.e. 25% each)? If not, could

USAID please share weight percentage for each criterion?

USAID Response: USAID will use ADJECTIVAL measures in evaluating/rating proposals as follows: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory and Neutral. The Evaluation Factors will be in a descending order of importance as follows:

(a) Factor 1 - Strategic and Technical Approach: Most Important

(b) Factor 2 - Key Personnel Qualifications/Experiences: Very Important

(c) Factor 3 - Management Approach and Staffing Plan: Important

(d) Factor 4 - Past Performance Information: Important

Annexes

72. Referring to Annex B Table B1, please clarify or confirm that USAID expects the OVC districts in the Southwest and East Central zone currently served by CDC and DOD to be transitioned to the new local partners that will receive direct USAID awards for these zones concurrently with ICYD. In other words, will phasing in of CDC- and DOD-supported districts be part of the scope and budget of these separate OVC service delivery awards?

USAID Response: ICYD is not expected to be responsible for OVC direct service delivery in any of the districts of the Southwest and East-Central zones.

73. In Annex B of the RFP, USAID provides a breakdown of OVC funding for local service delivery partners, however these dollar figures do not correspond to the PEPFAR funding considerations in Annex C. Could USAID please clarify.

USAID Response: The estimated Funding Considerations outlined in Annex C are provided for planning purposes through ICYD’s life-of-project. The PEPFAR components of the Funding Considerations encompass all PEPFAR/OVC related activities - including TA support, direct service delivery, coordination, site-level and above-site activities, clinical linkages, MER, etc. through ICYD’s life-of-project. The local service delivery (including management/administration and TA support) cost breakdown in Annex B are specific to the service delivery zones indicated therein and for

Years 1 and 2 only.

74. In Annex B of the RFP, USAID provides a breakdown of OVC funding for local service delivery partners, however these dollar figures do not correspond to the PEPFAR funding in Annex C. Could USAID please clarify the discrepancy in funding, and provide a detailed funding breakdown of the funding considerations to be applied to the objectives and tasks in ICYD?

USAID Response: See question #73

75. Annex B (page 78) provides detailed cost and targeting information for OVC services.

When comparing these numbers to the COP19 / FY20 Strategic Direction Summary targets, we have a number of questions:

a) The total OVC_SERV expected under ICYD is significantly less than the COP19 targets (See below). Could USAID explain this difference?

USAID Response: Estimated OVC_SERV targets are presented for planning and budgeting purposes and are reflective of USAID’s upcoming local partner awards, districts that will continue to be led by CDC and DOD in Years 1 and 2 before transitioning in later years to USAID, and ongoing analyses of available burden data.

Note that actual annual targets for OVC_SERV are finalized in consultation with

OGAC as part of the Country Operational Plan development and approval processes.

b) Could USAID provide more details on how the targets are disaggregated by district?

USAID Response: Estimated district level targets are not yet available for COP20.

c) If the remaining OVC_SERV are served by governmental service providers or other activities, could USAID please explain if the ICYD contractor team is or is not expected to provide technical assistance to these service partners?

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Uganda_COP19-Strategic-Directional-Summary_public.pdf

USAID Response: ICYD is expected to be available for technical assistance to other

PEPFAR agencies and partners beyond USAID, especially in instances where

PEPFAR OVC guidance is revised, but technical assistance will primarily be provided to USAID-funded partners.

d) No service delivery funds are allocated for Southwest and East-Central. However, according to table B1, there are three DOD / SD districts in Year 2 and eight CDC /

SD districts in Year 2 of the project in these zones. Using COP19 targets, this equates to 40,686 OVC that will transition in Year 2. Can USAID confirm that the SOCY and

BOCY transition awards will absorb this case load and any corresponding expectation to deliver services will be included in their awards?

USAID Response: All service delivery for Southwest and East-Central will be funded outside of the ICYD Activity.

e) Similarly, the budget figures for the other four zones are consistent in years 1 and 2 but the caseload will expand significantly in year 2 with the consolidation of the CDC and DOD portfolios (close to 140,000 OVC when using COP19 targets). Could

Zone Role by Year Role Annual

SD

Budget

(annex C)

OVC_SERV

(annex C)

COP19 Difference

COP v RFP

National above site systems and data work

TA TA TA TA TA TA 5

years

East-

Central

TA TA TA TA TA TA 5

years

49,959 49,959

Southwest TA TA TA TA TA TA 5 years

73,015 73,015

North-East T/S T/S TA TA TA TA + SD

2 years, continue d TA

$723,000 12,192 14,171 1,979

North-

West

T/S T/S TA TA TA TA + SD

2 years, continue d TA

$4,624,00

77,976 62,886 -15,090

West

Central

T/S T/S TA TA TA TA + SD

2 years, $3,587,00

60,489 96,417 35,928

Capital T/S T/S TA TA TA TA + SD

2 years, $1,537,00

25,919 51,615 25,696

Military ? ? ? ? ? ? 4,336 4,336

176,576 352,399 175,823

USAID explain how resources will be allocated to accommodate this increase in cases?

USAID Response: PEPFAR resources will be allocated in alignment with annually approved district-level targets. As illustrated in Table B-1, CDC and DOD caseloads in all zones are expected to shift directly to local partners, with technical assistance provided through the ICYD Activity.

f) Across all districts, will ICYD provide direct services to CDC / SD and DOD / SD

OVC or will the ICYD contractor team be responsible to facilitate transfer of caseloads without providing case management services in Year 2?

USAID Response: As detailed above, the ICYD Activity will not provide case management services in districts currently served by CDC and DOD.

g) Could USAID provide more detail about the anticipated timing of the CDC / SD and

DOD / SD transitions? Are these expected to occur at the beginning of Year 2 or towards the end?

USAID Response: Though subject to change based on annual COP planning, it is expected that the transitions/case transfers will be completed during quarter 4 of Year

2.

h) A number of districts have OVC_SERV COP19 targets but are not included in ICYD, according to Table B1. Could USAID confirm that Kikuube, Bugweri, Kwania, Nebbi, and Kassanda are not included in this activity?

USAID Response: An updated Table B-1 is attached. This change is reflected with a revision in the RFP, Annex B, Table B-1 (attached as a separate excel spreadsheet).

i) The ICYD target in North-West is significantly larger than the COP19 targets for the districts targeted in the Minimum Coverage table. Could USAID explain in which districts the extra 15,000 OVC-SERV beneficiaries will be targeted?

USAID Response: Estimated district level targets are not yet available.

j) Wherever possible, could USAID define expectations for OVC targets for comprehensive case management and those for 9-14-year-olds who are only expected to be reached with HIV primary prevention of HIV and sexual violence for 9-14-year-old modules?

USAID Response: Estimated distributions of comprehensive case management and

HIV and sexual violence prevention are not yet available.

76. In reference to Annex C of the RFP:

a) Since the fiscal years do not align with timeline of this solicitation, could USAID please update based on the timing of the award?

USAID Response: 76(a) The fiscal year funding considerations are for planning purposes. USAID, upon award, will align/update the PEPFAR component of the

Funding Considerations outlined in Annex C.

b) The estimated funding amounts do not align with the funding allocations to local partners to support OVC services detailed in Annex B. Could USAID please revise this breakout so that it aligns with Annex B local partner allocations?

USAID Response: 76(b) See response to question #73

77. Will USAID confirm whether contractors are expected to budget activities in proportion to the estimated Funding Considerations laid out in Annex C? If not, will USAID indicate the proportion of funding that it expects to be targeted to each of ICYD’s three objectives or five tasks?

a) Given restrictions on how PEPFAR, DA-Basic Education and DA-Higher Education funds can be spent, it would be helpful to have clarity in this regard in order to appropriately plan ICYD activities, both in terms of the RFP's ambitious SOW and anticipated funding sources.

USAID Response: Offerors should budget their proposed activities in proportion to the estimated funding considerations laid out in Annex C.

78. Could USAID please provide clear start and end dates for this activity? The funding totals in Annex C range from FY18 – FY24 while table B1 ranges from FY21 to FY25.

USAID Response: See question 3

79. Annex E proposes curriculum for consideration, however none of these addresses Youth livelihoods and soft skills for entrepreneurship, Can the applicant propose additional curriculum? (In line with this; we are expected to report on PP_PREV as per annex G, Can we add AGYW HIV Prevention curriculum or is the expectation of the mission that this will be delivered through Journeys alone (considering Journeys is school based)?)

USAID Response: Offerors may propose evidence-based curricula/approaches to achieve the ICYD expected results. All curricula/approaches funded through PEPFAR are reviewed and approved by OGAC (and potentially relevant GOU ministries), all school-based curricula/approaches are reviewed and approved by the GOU Ministry of

Education and Sports, and new curricula may be introduced at any time when mandated by PEPFAR or GOU policy.

80. Annex G lists the following required performance indicator: ES.1-2: Percent of learners targeted for USG assistance who attain minimum grade-level proficiency in reading at the end of primary school. Can USAID please clarify which grade should be considered end of primary for the purpose of this indicator?

USAID Response: In Uganda, there are seven years of primary school. Note however the complete statement of the indicator - ‘Percent of learners attaining minimum grade-level proficiency in reading at the end of primary school (or grade 6, whichever comes sooner) with USG assistance. Additional information on the USAID basic education standard indicators is available at: https://www.edu-links.org/resources/USAID-2019-

Education-Indicator-Guidance?q=resources/2019-e3ed-reporting-guidance

81. Annex G; One of the required Indicators is HTS_TST…