ATTACHMENT J18 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Final.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.18 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

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

Additionally, all the deletion in the solicitation are represented by a strikethrough while all additional updates are highlighted in yellow.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Does USAID encourage US-based small businesses to apply for this funding?

USAID Response: As described in the solicitation, this is a full and open competition.

Offerors in any capacity can apply. All terms and conditions of the potential award are laid out within the solicitation.

2. Given the detailed information required by USAID for both the technical and cost volumes, would USAID consider providing a two-week extension to allow Offerors sufficient time to adhere to all that is being requested?

USAID Response: The RFP submission deadline has been extended to May 11, 2021; 16:00 hours Kampala Time. See Amendment #1 cover sheet

3. RFP: Given the release of the RFP on a holiday weekend, would USAID request a revised submission date of May 11, 2021?

USAID Response: See response to question 2.

4. Can USAID please confirm if Offerors should assume an October 1, 2021 start date?

USAID Response: This activity is anticipated to start on or about October 1, 2021.

However, please note the project will start upon the contracting officer fully executing the contract.

5. USAID does not require Offerors to obtain documentation from referees prior to proposals submission?

USAID Response: USAID does not understand the question

6. It does not appear that there is funding planned for providing supply chain management TA or supply procurement to the health facility or community level. Could USAID please confirm which mechanism USAID anticipates will provide that type of support to the PUMRA project?

USAID Response: The Global Health Supply Chain - Procurement and Supply Management (GHSC - PSM) mechanism will provide procurement and supply management support to the Malaria Reduction Activity. GHSC - PSM will provide TA and is also responsible for procuring all USAID commodities. However, for commodities such as bed nets that will be distributed beyond private not for profit facilities, and will need to reach public facilities, the Malaria Reduction Activity will be expected to facilitate distribution from districts or regional offices (if applicable) to the last mile.

7. Will PUMRA collaborate with the separate "Digital Diagnostics Support" mechanism?

USAID Response: The PMI Malaria Reduction Activity will be expected to collaborate within its mandate and capacity with any mechanism supported by USAID/PMI, Ministry of Health or other partners in a manner that is complementary to achieving the objectives of the activity. Collaboration within activity objectives is expected without overlap with existing mechanisms.

8. Can USAID update the graphic to be of development objective 3 of the Uganda CDCS instead of development objective 2 page 15?

USAID Response: Thank you for noting this error. The RFP will be amended to include a graphic of development objective 3.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES

9. Is GUC and Shock Modifier plug in numbers included in the $30-38.1 million or will these two plugs in numbers be above the total costs?

USAID Response: The plug numbers provided under GUC and Shock Modifier are included in the total estimated amount.

10. The solicitation had no reference or discussion of the base fee which is normally included in a cost-plus award fee solicitation. Are there any requirements the offeror need to consider in proposing the base fee?

USAID Response: Per FAR 16.305, USAID determined not to include any base fee. Please refer to the amendment.

11. Can USAID please confirm if this assumption about Award Fee is correct: Offerors will propose several targets in the Cost Proposal’s Award Fee Evaluation Plan (that are aligned with the PWS) that will be used to determine the evaluation of Award Fee. The choice of indicators will not be evaluated until after the contract is awarded.

USAID Response: The Offeror must propose indicators/deliverables and targets throughout the life of the project. USAID will review the proposed indicators/deliverables and provide concurrence to the Offeror at the time of award.

12. On page 7 of the solicitation, “Base Fee” is included in the contract budget table. However, in the cost proposal instructions in section L, there is no description included for “Base Fee”, only “Award Fee” on page 152. Can USAID provide a description for Base Fee?

USAID Response: See response to question 10 above.

13. RFP Section B, p. 6: The RFP states that the purpose of PUMRA is to enhance the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of malaria in Uganda and contribute to the goals of the Uganda Malaria Reduction and Elimination Strategic Plan 2021-2025, while the Statement of Objectives (Annex J.1, p.1) states the purpose of the activity to is to strengthen the capacity of malaria prevention and ownership of health at the community and household levels, while maintaining gains made at the health facility level in focus districts. Would USAID kindly clarify the overall purpose of PUMRA?

USAID Response: These two statements are not mutually exclusive. The purpose of the Malaria Reduction Activity is to enhance the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of malaria in Uganda and contribute to the goals of the Uganda Malaria Reduction and Elimination Strategic Plan 2021-2025. To do so, the focus is on strengthening the capacity of malaria prevention and ownership of health at the community and household levels, while maintaining gains made at the health facility level in focus districts.

SECTION C- STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (ATTACHMENT J.1)

14. What is PMI’s plan for Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) in the regions of West Nile, Acholi, Lango, Karamoja and Busoga over the period of its PUMRA investment?

USAID Response: PMI plans to conduct IRS in the northern and eastern Uganda districts of Lira, Serere, Tororo, Budaka, Pallisa, Butebo, Butaleja, Bugiri, Namutumba, and Kibuku. In the Lango region, Lira is the only district planned for IRS. No IRS is planned by PMI in West Nile, Acholi, districts in Lango other than Lira, Karamoja, and Busoga. However, the Global Fund is planning IRS in selected districts of West Nile - the actual districts are still to be determined.

15. The RFP talks of ICCM; this is for children under 5 years. The UMREP proposes CCM (community case management by VHTs for children over 5 years and adults to increase access.

USAID Response: PMI’s objective is to reduce morbidity and mortality due to malaria in support of the UMRESP 2021-2025. iCCM is the well established mode of delivering comprehensive care in the community that is preferred. However, as outlined in the UMRESP, CCM is another accepted model for delivering community based services. In places where iCCM is not feasible, PMI is open to supporting CCM. Offerors can suggest what they see as suitable options using available data and resources.

16. Does PMI support rolling out CCM within this Activity?

USAID Response: Yes, PMI is open to supporting CCM, although preference is iCCM wherever feasible. Please see response to question number 15 above.

17. Could USAID please confirm how will the performance indicators listed in section C.4.1 in Attachment JI under the “Sub-Intermediate Result 1.3.2: New infections reduced” be measured, or is this at the contractor’s discretion? Specifically, is the contractor expected to measure an indicator like “Malaria incidence rate per 1000 population at risk” from facility data or from community case management data or from a combination of the two? If reporting and performance of iCCM is scaled up, it is quite likely that the short-term effect will be a rise (rather than a drop) in reported incidence. Increased coverage and capture of existing infections is one method through which iCCM may be expected to suppress transmission and reduce burden long-term. Increased reporting to DHIS2 of private sector case management could also have the short-term effect of making reported incidence increase. The same question applies to this indicator as well: “Percentage of children under 5 presenting with fever in the last two weeks”. The indicator on “Malaria test positivity rate (RDT and/or slide positivity rate)” is presumably measured at facilities alone.

USAID Response: “New infection reduced” can be measured by analysing trends in the three indicators (indicators 19-21) listed on page 18 of the SOO. Offerors are also free to propose other approaches to measure this. Please ensure that you measure new infections at public health facilities, community care sites, and as much as possible, private health facilities.

We understand that an increase in access to malaria services can temporarily increase reported incidence. This can be explained in activity reports, if it occurs. The same answer applies for the indicator “percentage of children under 5 presenting with fever in the last 2 weeks”. The source for this indicator should be survey data.

“Malaria test positivity rate” should be measured at both the facility and community levels.

18. SOO, Section C: Given the priority PUMRA high burden regions – including Karamoja – are offerors expected to work within refugee settlements and displaced persons camps to reach priority populations?

USAID Response: Offerors are not expected to work directly with refugees and IDPs.

However, offerors are expected to collaborate with UNHCR and other organizations that work with refugees on issues related to malaria.

19. SOO: Which Development Objectives in USAID’s CDCS do they want this activity to focus on? In the SOO, DO1 is clear (Page 14). But on Page 15 they refer to DO3 in the text and heading, but then insert DO2 chart in the text.

USAID Response: The Malaria Reduction Activity will largely contribute to DO1, but also DO3. There is indeed an error on page 15. The graphic will be replaced with the DO3 chart to match the title in the amended RFP. Offerors should familiarize themselves with the entire CDCS 2.0, as that is the guiding document for all the development objectives under which the activities will be housed. The link to the CDCS 2.0 with the correct DO framework and objectives is here: https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs

20. A decline in all cause <5 mortality from 60/1,000 to 20.5/1,000 in 5 years is extremely ambitious. More recent 2019 UNICEF estimates[1] put <5 mortality at 45.8/1,0000.

Regardless, reducing the <5 mortality rate within 5 years is also ambitious. Would USAID consider revising the <5 mortality targets given the length of the project in achieving those results? [Link: https://data.unicef.org/country/uga/]

USAID Response: The Uganda Malaria Reduction and Elimination Strategic Plan (UMRESP) 2021-2025 aims at reducing malaria mortality by 75%. This target is aligned with this goal.

Please refer to the UMRESP 2021-2025 for more guidance.

21. SOO, Section C, p.1: The SOO notes that “the Contractor must establish or reinforce quality integrated community care management (iCCM) services and promote the demand for these services.” However, Annex J.5 Prioritizing Districts for CCM focuses solely on measuring cost-effectiveness of community-based malaria components of iCCM. Are offerors expected to support non-malaria aspects of iCCM, such as diarrhea and acute respiratory infection through PUMRA?

USAID Response: Thank you. As already mentioned, the preference will be the implementation of iCCM wherever feasible. If not feasible, CCM is appropriate. Wherever iCCM is implemented, offerors are not expected to directly support non-malaria aspects, but trainings should be comprehensive and implementation should be done in tight collaboration with other partners supporting aspects related to diarrhea, pneumonia, and malnutrition.

https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs

22. SOO, Section C, p.2: The SOO notes that the Contractor must implement a mix of cost-effective interventions for each epidemiologic stratum. To which epidemiologic stratum is the SOO referring?

USAID Response: Thank you. This refers to the epidemiological stratification outlined in the Uganda Malaria Reduction and Elimination Strategic Plan (UMRESP) 2021-2025, Attachment J.8. This plan outlines the package of interventions appropriate for each stratum.

23. SOO, Section C, p.4; Annex J.14: The SOO states that the Contractor must develop an approach implementing the most cost-effective package of interventions in priority areas using the ROI model developed by Mission Measurement. However, the Excel spreadsheet provided via Annex J.14 appears to produce a formula error on Tab 2 (Row 27 and Row

29) if offerors change the inputs to use the cost estimator according to the excel sheet instructions. Would USAID or Mission Measurement provide further guidance on the use of this template, or provide a new spreadsheet?

USAID Response: This model functions best on Microsoft Office 365, so using it on a different excel version might cause the errors. To remedy this, Mission Measurement provided a link to an online version of the model. Please see this link below as well as instructions on how to use it.

PMI Malaria Intervention ROI Model

● Link to access online version of ROI Model: https://missionmeasurementcorp-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/epearson_missionmeasurement_com/EUWLgA2LWRF OllcAfPZHtA0Bd36siqw0mI2D96lSaONLCA?e=W8wFyc

● Important information for using online version:

○ The link is available to all, so once you complete your inputs and obtain necessary data, please reset for the next user.

○ To reset the tool please proceed as follows:

■ Part I: Return all component strategies to ‘No’

■ Part I: Remove all costs added

■ Part II: Remove anticipated reach value

■ Part III: No Action Required. Once Part I and Part II are clear, tool will reset to baseline efficacy “less than 60” and baseline cost “#DIV/0!”

24. SOO, Section C, p.4: The SOO notes that PUMRA is “authorized under USAID/Uganda’s Resilience Project.” Would USAID please provide more information or links to information about this project given its importance to the SOO?

USAID Response: The Malaria Reduction Activity is authorized under the USAID Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS 2.0) 2016-2021 that can be found here: https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs. The Resilience Project is under development objective 1.

25. Page 4 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: Is reduction in malaria transmission intensity a primary objective of the investment along with reduction in mortality associated with malaria and morbidity?

USAID Response: Thank you. Yes, the prevention of malaria morbidity (intensifying preventive methods) will reduce malaria transmission intensity. The Contractor must contribute to the reduction of transmission intensity with a focus on communities and households, in line with PMI technical guidance.

26. SOO, Section C, p.6: The SOO notes that “the Contractor must apply strategies to accelerate private sector investment and engagement in the health sector in Uganda as identified by the LHSS activity.” Would USAID please share the estimated timeline for completion of the three listed activities (landscaping, toolkit, and priority actions) to inform program planning? In addition, offerors would kindly request additional budget guidance to ensure respondents adequately plan for such activities within PUMRA?

USAID Response: The expected timeline for the LHSS activity is as follows:

● Comprehensive landscape of relevant private sector activities - completed by end of

May 2021

● Recommendations on priority opportunities - completed by July 2021

● PSE toolkit – completed by September 2021.

Questions related to budgets will be negotiated with the selected offeror after the activity is awarded.

27. On page 6 of the RFP, USAID states, “The contractor must collaborate with Digital Square and consider identified gaps for implementation where appropriate.” Will USAID release the recent Uganda digital landscaping report or recommendations for review by bidders?

USAID Response: The digital landscaping report funded by PMI is currently in its final stages of completion. A stakeholder workshop was held earlier in the year to gather input from key partners. PMI anticipates that this report will be available for public consumption on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) platform by May 2021.

28. When will the ecosystem assessment being carried out by Digital Square to understand how digital technologies are used in Uganda for community-based case management as well as data collection, reporting, and decision-making, referenced on page 6 of Attachment J.1, be available?

USAID Response: Please see the response to questions 26 above.

29. Page 6 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: When will PMI provide information on the strategies to accelerate private sector investment and engagement in the health sector in Uganda as identified by the LHSS activity?

USAID Response: Please see response to question 25 above.

30. Page 6 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: What are the timelines for the Digital Square initiative? When will the ecosystem assessment be completed?

USAID Response: Please see the response to questions 26 above.

31. Page 15 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: The title of the chart refers to Development Objective 3 and the chart refers to DO 2. Is this an error?

USAID Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed there is an error. The RFP will be amended with the correct graphic. You can also refer to the complete CDCS 2.0 framework here: https://www.usaid.gov/uganda/cdcs. This activity will contribute to development objectives 1 and 3 in the CDCS.

32. In Attachment J.1 Statement of Objectives, page 15 is entitled “Development Objective 3:

Key Systems More Accountable and Responsive to Uganda’s Development Needs” but instead shows the Results Framework for Development Objective 2. Can USAID provide offerors the Development Objective 3 results framework?

USAID Response: Thank you for pointing out this error. Please see the response to question 31 above.

33. On page 16 of Attachment J.1 SOO, it appears the baseline values taken from the recent Uganda Malaria Indicator Survey(MIS) are the averages of values from the five regions of PUMRA implementation and some are numbers representing the whole country. For example, on the indicator table, indicator 8 – when reviewing MIS data the national average of Insecticide Treated Net ownership is 83%, but the average of the 5 PUMRA regions is 80%. The indicator table lists 83% as the baseline.

a. Can USAID confirm that the baselines should only represent regions PUMRA focuses on?

USAID Response: Some baselines use national figures, based on the fact that relevant inputs are of national relevance. Others baseline figures only represent Malaria Reduction Activity focus regions.

b. Which current and previous projects are the baselines from Implementing Partners reports from?

USAID Response: These numbers come from reports from the PMI Malaria Action Program for districts (MAPD) activity, the USAID Regional Health Integration to Enhance Services (RHITES) activities, and the Strengthening Uganda's response to malaria (SURMa) project funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office.

34. Page 17 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: The target for the ‘number of insecticide-treated nets distributed to pregnant women in ANC’ is 100% whereas the baseline is 365,745. Is this an error? Will PMI be providing ITNs through this investment?

USAID Response: The target is that 100% of pregnant women who present at ANC 1 receive a net. ITNs will be procured through a different mechanism and provided to this activity for distribution to the last mile, where this is needed.

35. On page 18 of Attachment J. 1 SOO, for the indicator “Percentage of Children under five presenting with fever in the last two weeks” USAID notes a baseline of 87%, attributed to the UMIS 18-19. The country average listed in the UMIS report on the 2019 survey lists this indicator at 26% nationwide, and averages at 38.6% in PURMA target regions. Can USAID please confirm that 38.6% is the appropriate baseline?

USAID Response: Yes, thank you for catching this error. The percentage of children under 5 presenting with fever in the last two weeks is 38.6% for Malaria Reduction Activity targeted regions.

36. Page 18 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: The target for the ‘proportion receiving an ACT among children under five years old with fever in the last two weeks who received any antimalarial drugs’ is 100% and yet quality of care involves differential diagnosis of fever whereby not all fevers are due to malaria. Could the indicator and target be improved to foster parasite-based diagnosis and adherence to test results?

USAID Response: This is a standard survey indicator, which aims at measuring the appropriate use of antimalarial drugs. The assumption is that children with fevers who receive an antimalarial drug have been diagnosed with malaria. Whether or not this diagnosis was confirmed with a test, the antimalarial they receive should be an ACT. Please feel free to propose a different target with justifications, if you disagree.

37. Page 18 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: the target for ‘malaria test positivity rate’ is 16.9%. Does this represent the composite of health facility and community level testing or does the target refer to testing at health facility level only?

USAID Response: This refers to testing at Health facility and community levels.

38. Page 19 of Attachment J.I-Statement of Objective: Results under Component 2(a) and 2(b) do not have baseline and target measures. Does PMI intend to provide these or is the Offeror expected to propose these measures?

USAID Response: The baseline and target values for Component 2(a) and 2(b) will be finalized by PMI and the selected offeror upon award. However, offerors are encouraged to propose these measures in their proposals.

39. When will the landscaping of private sector effort in health in Uganda and PSE guide/toolkit being developed by the Local Health System Sustainability (LHSS) activity and referenced on page 5 of Attachment J.1 be available?

USAID Response: Please see response to question 25.

40. Page 22 Attachment J.1, what CLA sources are available from the COR that are not publicly accessible?

USAID Response: Thank you. The Contract Officer Representative (COR) will advise on additional resources that are not publicly available after the award is made, and based on the needs of the selected Offeror. The selected offeror is also expected to apply knowledge generated by learning throughout programming to implementation approaches, processes, and stakeholder engagement as indicated in the SOO.

SECTION F- DELIVERIES OR PERFRMANCE

41. Can the local major subcontractors have key staff assigned to them

USAID Response: USAID will not consider allowing the Prime Contractor to submit a Key Personnel position under a major subcontractor (whether local or not) as USAID does not have privity of contractor with the Sub, therefore creating an inappropriate relationship between the key personnel and USAID.

42. Would USAID change the language in Section F.6.1 Reports and Section H.6 Grants Under Contracts to state that “All grants must be completed one month prior to the end of the contract,” to allow offerors flexibility in the last year of programming while still providing time to close out the last remaining grants?

USAID Response: No. Offerors should plan to start their grants early to have sufficient time for closeout.

43. F.7. Key Personnel P25-P27 - Key Personnel are 5 TBD. Does this imply that the contractor should propose who the Key Personnel positions should be?

USAID Response: Contractors are to provide a full list of personnel needed to execute the activity based on their proposed technical approach. Please review section F/L for full details and instructions.

44. RFP Section F. 9, Technical Approval Requirements, requires CO “Approval of salary/daily rate for professional expatriate and professional Ugandan Long Term Technical Assistance (LTTA) and Short-Term Technical Assistance (STTA) not named in the prime budget.”

Please clarify if this requirement is only for the Contractor, or the Contractor and Subcontractors as well. In other awards with USAID/Uganda, the CO required this only of the Contractor, not Subcontractors.

USAID Response: USAID confirms this is only for the prime contractor. However, please note that all salary increase requests above these thresholds will require approval from the Contracting Officer.

45. Would USAID please confirm that offerors may submit up to 5 key personnel per page 25?

USAID Response: See response to question 43 above.

46. Page 28, Section F.10 requires the Contractor to provide support to USAID/Uganda operations up to the point at which support meets the line which functions are considered “inherently governmental”. Do we anticipate providing support to the Mission’s operation?

Please clarify?

USAID Response: The Contractor, in addition to the regular reports, will provide updated information related to the activity during the Malaria Operation Plans (MOPs) preparations, regularly sharing success stories of the activity, responding to urgent questions (related to the activity) that come from senior leadership, and responding to any related evaluation and audit related activities.

SECTION H- SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

47. Section H.6 states, “No cash or in-kind grants will be made to the Government of Uganda, including regional and district level authorities.” However, Sections C, L, and M reference providing in-kind grants to local government entities, and this is allowed per ADS

302.3.4.13. Would USAID please remove reference to in-kind grants not being allowed in Section H.6?

USAID Response: This was an oversight. The RFP has been updated to remove the language

48. Page 36, Section H.6 Grants Under Contract: In one bullet it states no cash or in-kind grants will be made to the Government of Uganda, including regional and district level authorities. In another bullet it states that grants to local governments must be provided in-kind (including “in-kind” grants, technical assistance and other activities provided to or on behalf of the GOU). Also, under Section L (page 143) it mentions that only in-kind grants to local governments is allowed.

a) It seems there is a conflict between the two bullets. Please clarify.

USAID Response: Only in-kind grants will be provided to Government of Uganda regional and district level authorities.

b) Can you explain how in-kind grants and technical assistance is provided on behalf of the Government of Uganda? Does this conflict with USAID branding policy?

USAID Response: Offerors are encouraged to provide innovative ways in the provision of in-kind grants. Please refer to page 37 of Amendment I.

49. Can USAID please clarify whether in-kind grants to the Government of Uganda can be issued at any level (national, regional, district, and subdistrict) as referenced on page 37?

USAID Response: See response to question 47.

50. H.7. SHOCK MODIFIER: P38: Does the $3.8m budget contain the additional indirect cost associated with implementing these additional activities or should the budgeted indirect costs include the Shock Modifier budget of $3.8m within the indirect cost calculation?

USAID Response: The estimated amount for Shock Modifier is a plug figure of $3.8 million.

51. Can USAID please confirm that the activities will be limited to the 5 regions listed in the RFP on page 37?

USAID Response: The activities will be limited to the five regions listed in the RFP, with the exception of activities at the national level such as capacity building for the National Malaria Control Division and stakeholder coordination activities (for example, support to Roll Back Malaria and technical working group meetings). Surveillance and routine net distribution activities will also go beyond the targeted regions to fill the gaps not covered by other USAID mechanisms and donors. Additionally, this activity will allow for a flexible implementation model to be able to respond to malaria upsurges outside of the targeted regions.

52. Can USAID please confirm that activities conducted under the Crisis Modifier as described on page 37 could be used for activities outside of the 5 regions listed in the RFP?

USAID Response: Thank you. No, the Crisis Modifier as described can be used only for activities in the 5 Malaria Reduction Activity regions listed in the RFP.

53. Does USAID have a preference as to how the offeror should spread the Crisis Modifier amount referenced on page 37 across the life of the activity?

USAID Response: Thank you. Yes, the offeror should spread the Crisis Modifier amount across the life of the activity. However, when there is no crisis in a given project year the allocated amount can be carried over to the following year. Specific allocations can be decided in consultation with the COR during the work planning process.

54. RFP: Under H.7 on page 38 USAID says, “Design and management of contingency plans will be done in consultation with PMI and FFP…” Can USAID please communicate who is FFP?

USAID Response: This was an oversight. FFP is an acronym that stands for Food for Peace.

This section has been updated to reference the correct language.

55. As referenced on page 63, “Pursuant to this, the PMI Uganda Malaria Reduction Activity is covered by an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) file name: Uganda_ Resilience _IEE_03092020, which expires on March 16, 2022. USAID has determined that a Negative Determination with conditions applies to one or more of the proposed activities. This indicates that if these activities are implemented subject to the specified conditions, they are expected to have no significant adverse effect on the environment. The Contractor shall be responsible for implementing all IEE conditions pertaining to activities to be funded under this solicitation.” Could USAID kindly provide the referenced IEE? The USAID Environmental Compliance database where such documents are usually accessible remains down for unscheduled maintenance.

USAID Response: The IEE has been attached to the RFP as Attachment J.16

56. Can USAID please provide the Uganda Mission Local Compensation Plan referenced on page 69?

USAID Response: a copy of the Kampala LCP has been provided as attachment J.17

SECTION I- CONTRACT CLAUSE

57. Page 85, I.7 FAR 52.216.24, Limitation of Government Liability (APR 1984). We are wondering why this clause is inserted and if USAID intends to impose a ceiling for expenditures or obligations under the award. Please confirm.

USAID Response: 52.216-24 is a mandatory clause.

58. Section I incorporated 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which requires the Offeror and upon request by the Contracting Officer to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan. We noticed Section L is silent about any submission of a Subcontracting Plan. Will this plan be requested and negotiated later, after the award is made? Please clarify.

USAID Response: Offerors are not required to submit a Subcontracting Plan. Language throughout the RFP has been updated accordingly.

59. RFP Section I.10, “FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments.” FAR 32.500.a states that Progress Payments do not apply to cost-reimbursement contracts. In addition, this clause conflicts with FAR 52-216-7, “Allowable Cost and Payment,” incorporated throughout the RFP. We therefore request USAID to remove this clause on Progress Payments.

USAID Response: FAR 32.500a is not applicable to Progress Payments. However, 32.502-4 is the correct reference which doesn’t prohibit the use of the clause for cost-reimbursement contracts. Additionally, USAID does not see this as a contradiction in using both clauses. Please review Section H.31 which describes the intent of the use of the Progress Payment clause.

60. RFP Section I.11, FAR 52.245-1 Government Property, and I.1, AIDAR 752.245-71 discuss the property management and care requirements and title to property acquired under the contract. The AIDAR states that 752.245-71 “must be inserted in all contracts when the contractor will acquire property under the contract for use overseas and the contract funds were obligated under a Development Objective Agreement (DOAG) (or similar bilateral obligating agreement) with the cooperating country.” Can USAID confirm if the funds to be obligated under this specific Activity will be obligated under a DOAG or similar bilateral agreement with the cooperating country?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the funds will be obligated under a DOAG.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENTS

61. Attachment J.14 is the ROI Model. Part III of the input sheet does not seem to function properly when one enters data into Parts I and II. Could PMI clarify the instructions for using the ROI model developed by Mission Measurement. The RFP guidance is to avoid any cost-related information in the Technical proposal; does this mean that the information from the ROI model should be presented in the budget proposal only or can information from the ROI model be included in the Technical proposal?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question 22. The purpose of this model is to help offerors in making a decision regarding proposed packages of interventions. It is not necessary to report cost information related to this model in the proposal.

62. Annex J.5 Prioritizing Districts for CCM: The PMI/GiveWell model prioritizes districts based upon cost-effectiveness of CCM. Are offerors expected to target districts for CCM in PUMRA based solely on this guidance, or does USAID expect offerors to weigh additional criteria such as equity or other issues?

USAID Response: The Give Well model is only meant to provide guidance to offerors for one of many factors that can be considered when making the decision of where to prioritize iCCM/CCM implementation. Offerors are encouraged to consider all factors they judge important when making this decision.

63. Annex J.5 Prioritizing Districts for CCM: Are offerors expected to cover all districts in PUMRA target regions with CCM, or a sub-set of priority districts based upon GiveWell guidance?

USAID Response: Offerors are not expected to cover all districts in Malaria Reduction Activity regions with iCCM/CCM. Offerors are expected to target as many districts as possible for iCCM/CCM implementation, as budget allows, and prioritized based on the Give Well model as well as all other factors the offeror judges to be important to consider.

SECTION K- REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS

64. Can you provide live links to forms required under Section K?

USAID Response: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/ https://www.acquisition.gov/far/

SECTION L-INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

65. Page 140 of the RFP states that proposals should be submitted in compatible MS Word (and

PDF with Optical Character Recognition) format, given the diversity of annexes and the requirement for the submission of signed documents, would USAID accept technical submissions in PDF format only?

USAID Response: No, the technical proposal must be submitted in both MS Word and PDF.

Annexes may be submitted with the PDF version of the technical proposal.

66. Can USAID please confirm that text in graphs, maps, and charts described on pages 141 and 142 do not need to be in Times New Roman font?

USAID Response: Confirmed. Offerors may use any font for graphs, tables, charts, and tables but must be no smaller than 9 point.

67. The RFP Page 140 states that Offerors must use 8.5 x 11” paper, but pg. 141 states that a Theory of Change graphic can be 11x17.” Can USAID clarify if this is a typo or if the Theory of Change graphic is an exception to the page size requirement on page 140?

USAID Response: Theory of Change is an exception

68. RFP page 141 states that the QASP has a page limit of 5 pages, but page 143 states that there is no page limit for the QASP, could USAID please confirm the page limit for the QASP annex?

USAID Response: There is no page limitation for the QASP. The section has been amended since, thank you for pointing that out.

69. Is there a page limit for the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)? Page 141 says 5 pages; page 143 says the Draft QASP does not have a page limit.

USAID Response: See the answer to Question 68 above

70. RFP states on page 141, Section L.8.1, that Annex 2: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is limited to 5 pages. The RFP then states on page 143, Section L.8.3(a), that Annex 2: Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan “Does not have a page limit; Offerors are encouraged to be concise.” Could USAID please clarify the page limit for the QASP?

71. RFP: Page 141 of the RFP states that Factor 2 is a “Key Personnel and Management plan (5 pages).” Later on page 144, USAID requests a “Management Approach and Staffing plan (5 pages).” Can USAID rephrase to ensure that title and description is consistent?

USAID Response: The correct title is Management Approach and Staffing Plan, language has been updated in the RFP.

72. Can USAID confirm that the Draft QASP does not have a page limit as described on page

143?

73. USAID says on page 143 about writing the draft QASP: “The QASP will provide preliminary Life of Activity performance indicator targets for these identified illustrative core indicators”, and in section J.1. goes on to identify life of activity targets for many of them.

Can USAID share how the methodology used for identifying these targets for the life of activity?

USAID Response: Yes, PMI has done most of the leg work in estimating targets. These targets were identified based on UMRESP 2021-2025 goals and objectives, and using baselines from routine and survey data. Please also see the answer to Question 32.a.

74. Would USAID kindly consider removing the page limit for the acronym list on page 141?

USAID Response: The table of contents and acronym list do not count towards the page limit. The RFP has been updated accordingly.

75. Would USAID consider accepting an additional page for Annex 4 to allow for sufficient space to include the narrative of the roles and responsibilities of the Activity’s team?

USAID Response: No, this will not be revised.

76. Please clarify whether resumes for key personnel are limited to 2 pages or 3; page 144 says 2 pages in the Annex 5 heading but 3 pages in the body text.

USAID Response: Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel is limited to 2 pages (2 pages per resume plus 1 page for each Position Description)

77. RFP: The RFP notes that the Contractor is not authorized to provide funds to the government of Uganda in several places (p.6, 37, 85). However, the RFP does exclude “in-kind grants” to local governments (e.g. district governments), technical assistance, and other activities provided to or on behalf of the partner government entity (p.143). Section H.6 “Grants Under Contract” states that “no cash or in-kind grants will be made to the Government of Uganda, including regional and district level authorities,” but then goes on to state that “grants to local governments must be provided in-kind (including ‘in-kind’ grants, technical assistance, and other activities provided to or on behalf of the GOU).”

Would USAID please clarify if a) in-kind grants on behalf of national government related to the program objectives are allowable? b) What types of “other activities” would be allowable as an in-kind grant?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that only in-kind grants will be provided to Government of Uganda regional and district level authorities for program objectives. Offerors are encouraged to provide innovative approaches in the provision of in-kind grants.

78. The RFP pg 144 states that for Annex 5 there should be “2 pages per resume plus 1 page for each Position Description” in the header, and in the text suggests “Résumés must not exceed three pages in length…” Similarly, the header suggests 1 page for Position description but in the text suggests that “Qualifications (position description, roles and responsibilities and minimum skill sets) for each proposed Key Personnel (not to exceed two page per position).” Can USAID please confirm if it would prefer 2 pages per resume or 3? And if it would prefer 1 page per Position Description or 2 (and if the Qualifications are intended to be the same as the Qualifications)?

USAID Response: See response to question 76 above.

79. The RFP on page 144 requires Offers to provide Qualifications for Key Personnel which include “position description, roles and responsibilities, and minimum skill sets.” Can USAID please clarify how it delineates between a position description and the roles and responsibilities? Or if they are one and the same?

USAID Response: Roles and responsibilities are part of the position description

80. RFP Section L, p. 144: We request that USAID increase the page limit of Annex 4 (Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan) from three to four pages. This request is to ensure offerors have adequate space to address the Staffing Plan requirements in detail, which include all titles, LOE, as well as a narrative for roles of each position. These requirements make it likely that respondents will exceed the current one page allocated within Annex 4 for the staffing plan.

USAID Response: The organizational Chart and Staffing plan page limit has been updated to reflect 4 pages.

81. Can USAID clarify what should be included under Factor 3: Past Performance and what should be included under Annex 7 per pages 144 and 145?

USAID Response: As stated in Section L.8.3(c)(a)(1), “List, in Annex 7 to the technical proposal all required Past Performance Information.”

82. On page 145 of the RFP, USAID states “For all contracts where the offeror is unable to obtain a reference utilizing Attachment J-15, please ensure the Past Performance Matrix, Column “N” is fully completed.” To ensure we are fully compliant, can USAID please confirm that the intention is for Offerors to fill out J-15 which would include reference information, and that that the intention is for Offerors to fill out J-15 which would include reference information, and that USAID does not require Offerors to obtain documentation from referees prior to proposals submission?

USAID Response: See RFP Section L.8.3(c)(a)(1)(ii)

83. Section L.7(d)2 states, “Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word (and PDF with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, Unlocked Excel spreadsheets.” Section L.9.2.3 states that the budget narrative “must be in Microsoft Word format and Adobe PDF for submission.” Can USAID confirm that the cost volume may be submitted in PDF only, the budget narrative in Word, and the budgets in unlocked Excel spreadsheets?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Offerors must provide proposals in compatible MS Word (and PDF with Optical Character Recognition) and budgets as text accessible, Unlocked Excel spreadsheets.

84. Regarding the technical volume, to ensure that the page layout remains unchanged — especially important to assure maintaining the required page limits regardless of computer or printer configuration — and that we may protect original signatures, may we submit the volume solely in Windows-compatible, text-accessible Adobe Acrobat PDF?

USAID Response: Yes signatures on pdf are acceptable

85. Section L.8.1 states, “Detailed instructions on content are below. The Technical Proposal must be. Any pages exceeding these limits will not be read or evaluated.” The second sentence appears to be cut off. Can USAID please provide the full sentence?

USAID Response: Updated to read: see RFP p.141 detailed instructions on content are below. Any pages exceeding these limits will not be read or evaluated

86. L.8.3 (c ) Factor 3 Past Performance (3) (B) P146. To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the recent contracts no more than 3, within the past five years for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS. Is there a template we should use?

USAID Response: No

87. L.9.1 Standard Form (SF) 33 – Given that many people are working from home, can an electronic signature be used instead of an original signature of an authorized person?

USAID Response: Yes, an electronic signature can be used on the SF -33 form. Language in Section L.9.1 has been updated to reflect this.

88. Page 147 states that an “original signature” of a person authorized on behalf of the offeror to sign the offer is required for the SF-33 form, could USAID please confirm that it will accept verified DocuSign or other verified electronic signature on the SF-33 form especially given the realities of the COVID-19 situation?

USAID Response: Please see response to question 87 above.

89. Please clarify, L.9.2 Proposed Costs/Prices Detailed budget P147 ”Offerors must incorporate and link sub-contractor budgets within their own”. “Please note that all budgets for major subcontractors must be linked to the summary budget” Does this mean that all major subcontractor budgets be linked to the budget summary only, OR should major subcontractor budgets be linked to the prime offeror’s detailed budget under the subcontracts section?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the sub-contractor budget should be linked to both the summary budget and detailed budget under subcontracts section. RFP will be amended to reflect the same.

90. Section L.9.2.3 has a sentence beginning, “Estimated costs proposed to exceed ceilings” that appears to be cut off. Can USAID please provide the full sentence?

USAID Response: This section has been updated to state “Estimated costs proposed to exceed ceilings imposed by USAID or Federal procurement policy must be fully explained and justified”

91. Section L.9.2 asks offerors to “provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee.” As the successful offeror will submit a grants manual within 120 days of award that details the process for identifying, evaluating, vetting, awarding, and monitoring grant activities, can USAID confirm that a plug figure may be included in the proposal submission as the grantee selection process will be initiated after award and in coordination with USAID?”

USAID Response: USAID confirms that Offerors can include plug figures

92. The solicitation states on page 147, “A budget format to be used by offerors is provided.”

However, no budget template is attached. Will USAID be providing a budget template, or may the offeror use its own established detailed and summary budget template based on the contract budget table included on page 7 of the RFP?

USAID Response: This was an oversight. USAID does not plan to provide a budget template. The information provided in Section B.4 and L.9.1 is sufficient for the Offeror to generate a budget. The RFP has been updated to remove the language from the section.

93. Page 149, Section L, Grants Under Contracts requires that the offeror must provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each grantee. The solicitation provided in Section B.4 $4,000,000 as a lumpsum.

a) Is the $4,000,000 for GUCs a plug figure to be included in the offeror’s proposal or a ceiling that the offeror shall not exceed?

USAID Response: The estimated amounts for GUCs is a plug figure of $4,000,000.

b) If the GUCs funding is a ceiling not to be exceeded, are we required to provide details of the breakdown (GUCs budget) for each proposed GUC and substantiate the reasonableness of each proposed grant?

USAID Response: The estimated amounts for GUCs is a plug figure of $4,000,000.

c) Are we required to name the proposed grantees and proposed grant amounts allocated for each of them or we just address the requirement in L.8.3(a) regarding the offeror approach that will be used for GUCs and provide a brief discussion in the budget narrative?

USAID Response: Offerors are not required to propose grantees at this stage. However, in the event a grantee has been identified by the offeror at the pre-award stage, detailed budgets for the same must be submitted.

d) Can we postpone the details of the grantees until after award as part of the approved workplan and through the approval process mentioned in Sections F.9 and H.6?

USAID Response: See response to question 93(c) above.

94. Will USAID require that local groups and local experts don't have to be exclusive with any group?

USAID Response: USAID does not require local organizations to be exclusive.

95. RFP Section L.9.3.a states that “Offerors and all (major and minor) proposed subcontractors must ensure they are registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) (www.sam.gov) per FAR part 4.” FAR Subpart 4.11, System for Award Management, only requires SAM registration for applicable Offerors, not Subcontractors. In addition, based on the Federal Register, dated 09/26/2018, the USG ruled that “Subcontractors or consultants to prime contractors are not required to be registered in SAM.” We therefore request that USAID remove this requirement for subcontractors (major or minor) to be registered in SAM.

USAID Response: Offerors are required to be SAM’s registered unless the acquisition is exempt under FAR 4.1102(a)

96. The RFP page 154 states the Offeror must provide information to support consent to major sub-contractors but in the same section states that this is for subcontractors (presumably all potential subcontractors, not just major subcontractors).