Attachment A_ Questions and answers.pdf

RFP # 72066024R00012

USAID Santé Gouvernance Activity

Amendment No. 1 Attachment A: Questions and answers

Attachment A: Questions and Answers

1. On page 36, section H.5(b) includes: “Unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, the maximum prevailing compensation must not exceed the maximum salary under the DRC Mission Local Compensation Plan.” Would USAID provide a copy of the DRC Mission Local Compensation Plan to ensure alignment of offered compensation?

Answer: The offerors are expected to propose salary rates based on prevailing market rates and applicable cost principles. Attachment 4 of the RFP included the link of the local compensation market survey results. The local compensation threshold salary information shared in attachment J.4.

2. Per page 92 of the RFP, can the applicant follow established personnel policies and salary scales determined by the organization that aligns with market data and current USAID funded projects that includes current staff paid under USAID funding so that alignment to salary scales is maintained and consistent.

Answer: An offeror can propose salary and compensation based on prevailing market rates and applicable cost principles.

3. The RFP requires that payment of TCNs and CCNs be made in local currency for this proposal. Like many NGOs in the DRC, personnel have been historically paid in USD through commercial bank accounts. Payment in local currency (Franc Congolais) would require most staff to then revert those to USD for services such as rent payment, schooling, and for any potential savings for future years, given the continued devaluation of the FC. Would USAID reconsider this requirement or agree that payment to staff in Congolese Francs to Commercial Banks could readily and legally converted into USD….but at a conversion and exchange rate that would be borne by local staff involved in this project?

Answer: The CO may authorize waiver for the payment in USD per AIDAR 722.170 based on a request from the contractor.

4. Unallowable Costs. The RFP lists among unallowable costs for third country nationals (TCN’s) and cooperating country nationals (CCN’s)‘Allowances and Differentials’. CCN and TCN employees receive a standard benefit package which includes allowances such as housing and transport as mandated by the local labor law. Could USAID clarify what types of allowances and differentials that they are referring to (RFP reference page 37)

Answer: Allowance and differentials as mentioned under Section H.5 refers to expatriate allowances as mentioned under the Department of State Standardized

Regulations (DSSR). Fringe benefits such as housing and transportations may be proposed as per applicable DRC labor codes and labor ministry decrees/orders.

5. What is the envisioned start date for this project?

Answer: The planned start date of the activity is May 1, 2025 depending on completion of negotiations and execution of contract

6. Page 96 of the RFP (Part 4 – Cost Proposal) seems to request policies. Could USAID please confirm that the policies are not required with the submission, only upon request as noted.

Answer: The paragraph has been updated through this amendment to make it clear on requirements of submitting policies and procedures to substantiate the reasonableness of proposed costs. The CO may request additional policy documents as needed for risk assessment.

7. Would USAID permit text contained in charts, graphs, and tables in the Performance Work Statement to be a smaller font size than 11pt?

Answer: Legible font size is acceptable for charts, graphs, and tables.

8. Will USAID allow title pages/slides, acronym lists, and the agenda slide to be excluded from the 10-page limit for the Performance Work Statement and 35 slide maximum for the oral presentation slide deck?

Answer: Title page, acronyms lists, and agenda can be excluded from the slide and page limits.

9. Page 65: “The amount of such grants may not exceed $250,000 for U.S. non-governmental organizations.” What about non-U.S NGOs? Is this amount ceiling annual or for the life of the activity?

Answer: Section I.13 has been updated with the update of 2 CFR 200. As referenced in Section I.13, the GUCs will be administered per ADS 302.3.5.6 which reference ADS 303.

ADS 303.3.21(a) (as updated on October 1, 2024) provides the guidance on the threshold.

Please see cited policies on applicable restrictions.

10. Page 85: Can USAID confirm that consortia must submit their teaming/partnership agreements with their proposals? Is the written memorandum to be submitted different from the teaming agreement?

Answer: This is applicable If two or more parties have formed a partnership or joint venture (see FAR 9.6) for purposes of submitting a proposal under this RFP as a single entity. In addition to the partnership agreement, a memorandum needs to be submitted incorporating the required information as per Section L.5 (d).

11. Page 85: “Each e-mail must be 10MB or less in size.” Given this size limit and the prohibition of zipped files, will USAID accept multiple-e-mail proposal submission?

Answer: Yes, multiple emails are acceptable as long as it follows the guidance provided in L.6.d.(4).

12. Page 98: “Offerors must provide information regarding its recent history of performance for up to three of its contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements involving similar or related programs, in the past 3 years.” In case of a consortium, is this history of performance based only on the prime’s?

Answer: When submitting a proposal as part of a joint venture or partnership, the offeror must ensure that the past performance of all relevant members is included. The offeror must highlight the specific roles of each member in past projects, especially if some entities are contributing specialized skills or capabilities relevant to the project. If the joint venture itself has no past performance, clearly identify the relevant projects that individual members have completed that align with the contract’s requirements.

13. Page 105: “Offerors must make every reasonable effort to identify and offer opportunities to small business concerns and disadvantaged enterprises.” Must these small business concerns be only U.S-based? Should this identification be done solely through a procurement process? Once selected, should they also be considered as subcontractors?

Answer: The Small Business concerns must be from the U.S. Please see the definition of small business under FAR Subpart 2.1. The apparently successful offeror will be requested for the small business subcontracting plan as mentioned in Section H.7 and L.8 of the RFP.

Offerors may indicate their plans for utilizing the U.S. Small businesses in their slides specifying the percentage of funds planned for the U.S. Small businesses.

14. Since this activity mechanism is a contract, must subawards also be contracts between the prime and the subawardees (subcontracts)? Will the Contractor issue subcontracts to subs or will they issue grants under contract? If the prime must issue subcontracts, do they have to be CPFF-type contracts or can they be cost-reimbursable subcontracts or fixed-price contracts?

Answer: Please review the guidance provided on Grants Under Contracts (GUC) and fixed price subcontracts to local entities from Attachment J.1.

15. On page 9, section B.4 (d) of RFP indicates that the fixed price subcontracts to DPS must not incur indirect costs as they are considered “pass-through” amounts, and that administration costs must be charged directly under activity implementation costs.

However, inclusion of administration costs of this nature as direct activity costs would be a violation of the terms of our NICRA rate. In order to ensure all bidders may be NICRA compliant, would USAID please remove this language or allow bidders to include any associated indirect costs under “Activity implementation cost” in the budget found at the start of section B.4?

Answer: Please note that Indirect costs that meet the definition of "excessive pass-through charge" in 52.215-23, are unallowable per FAR 31.203. Based on the scope of the planned contract and the nature of the work in providing funding to the provincial governments using fixed price contracts, the Contracting Officer determined that Fixed Price Subcontracts to DPS adds negligible added value as defined in FAR 52.215-23 ( referenced in Section I). Section B.4(d) has been updated to use the appropriate terminology.

16. On page 10, section B.7 (c) includes: “Reimbursement for indirect costs shall be at the lower of the negotiated final (or predetermined) rates, but not in excess of the following ceiling rates.” However, USAID’s “Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing” (ADS Reference 302mbl) states “USAID awards should reflect the exact indirect cost rates established in the current governing NICRA. Only in exceptional circumstances should a cost reimbursement type USAID contract or grant contain an indirect cost rate which deviates from the government-wide NICRA rates for a U.S. firm.” Additionally, FAR

42.707 lists limited situations when it would be prudent to establish a final indirect cost rate ceiling in a contract or grant, namely: (a) cost-sharing arrangement, when authorized; (b)(1) when the proposed contractor: (i) is a new or recently reorganized company where there is no past or recent record of incurred indirect costs; (ii) has a recent record of a rapidly increasing indirect cost rate; or (iii) seeks to enhance its competitive position. Given that there are no cost-sharing arrangements contemplated in the solicitation, would USAID consider removing the requirement that offerors propose ceilings on their final indirect cost rates or, alternatively, confirm that this requirement only applies to offerors lacking a government-wide NICRA?

Answer: Please note that following instructions were provided in the clause: “This clause may be added if a ceiling for indirect cost rate is negotiated with the successful offeror”. This will be applicable if an offeror agrees to propose lower indirect cost rates seeking to enhance its competitive position and submit a signed agreement as provided in attachment J.3.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52#FAR_52_215_23

17. A prime contractor is expected to flow down all FAR Clauses and provisions of the prime contract to subcontractors as reasonably required to comply with the terms and conditions of the award. Will USAID provide guidance to the selected contractor about terms and conditions considered required or recommended for subcontracts with host government entities?

Answer: All mandatory clauses must be included in the subcontract unless the CO obtains approval of a deviation and includes it in a Determinations & Findings (D&F) package.

18. On RFP page 66 in Part III/Section J – List of Attachments, the link to the Subcontracting

Plan Template (J.2) leads to a “Page not Found” landing page. Will USAID update the link?

Answer: The link has been updated.

19. Could USAID confirm that the Business Volume should include a cover page and transmittal letter? If so, could USAID provide instructions for these?

Answer: There are no restrictions on receiving a cover letter or transmittal letter under the RFP as part of the cost proposal.

20. In Section H.2 ‘Nonexpendable Property Purchases and Information Technology Resources,’ the RFP states that the contractor must request approval from the Contracting Officer before acquiring any non-expendable property. Can USAID confirm whether this Contracting Officer approval is required if the Offeror has a USAID Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) Approved Purchasing System?

Answer: Please note that the concept of approved purchasing system is applicable for FAR Part 44 which is applicable for consent to subcontract. It does not apply on FAR Part 45 and AIDAR Part 745.

21. Will USAID provide the proposal validity period for SF 33 Block/Section 12?

Answer: The proposal validity period is included with the RFP amendment.

22. Will USAID confirm that, as subcontractors, each DPS will be required to register for a Unique Entity Identifier in sam.gov?

Answer: There is no specific requirement for UEI registration for subcontractors but contractors must comply with the FAR 52.204-10.

23. Will USAID confirm that, as subcontractors, the DPS will be held to the requirements of FAR 52.204.10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards?

Answer: Currently there is no waiver on the requirement of FAR 52.204-10.

24. Section L.7, RFP page 87 states “Oral presentation slides must have slide numbers and include a presentation cover sheet inclusive of proprietary data markings, presentation team (including a listing of names, positions, and company affiliations for each presenter), and presentation agenda.” Will USAID confirm the slides containing the requested information will not count towards the 35-slide limit?

Answer: Presentation cover sheet and agenda are not counted towards the 35-slide limit.

25. Section L.7, RFP page 87 states a 10-page PWS and 6-page AMELP are required. Will USAID confirm a cover page, table of contents, and acronym list is allowed and will not count against the page limit?

Answer: Cover page, table of contents, and acronym lists will not be counted towards the page limits.

26. Major subcontractors, as mentioned in sections L.8 and M.2, are not defined in the RFP.

Will USAID provide a definition for major subcontractors?

Answer: Major subcontract is defined as one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost. Please update in Section L.8.

27. Will USAID confirm that regardless of allocated budget, the DPS are not considered “major subcontractors”?

Answer: DPS is not considered a major subcontractor.

28. Grants Under Contracts are mentioned in the RFP in multiple places (pp. 44, 90, and 93).

The Grants Under Contract mechanism is intended to be a competitive mechanism to provide grants to LNGOs to improve governance and accountability for the development and implementation of the MoU. However, Section L.8 requests that Offerors must provide cost reasonableness information for each grantee in the budget narrative. Given that grantees will be decided via a competitive process after award, could USAID please remove this requirement to provide cost reasonableness information for grantees as part of the budget narrative?

Answer: Section L.8 has been updated.

29. The budget template provided in attachment J.10 was missing many expected columns and rows in the detailed prime and sub budget tabs. May Offerors use their own templates, as long as they follow the same order of cost items and includes the provided CLIN summary tab?

Answer: Please note that following guidance was provided under the first tab of attachment J.10: “The budget template is provided to ensure the offeror's proposed standard budget line items for USAID’s comparative analysis. Offerors can use their own template to provide the requested information per Section L.8.”

30. On the Summary tab of the provided budget template, can USAID confirm that the “Grants Under Contracts (GUC)” line should be moved under the “SUBCONTRACTS AND GRANTS” subheading of the same table?

Answer: The attachment J.10 has been updated.

31. Section F.5, RFP page 26 states the draft SOP Manual for MoU Implementation “must be revised by the contractor and adapted to support the implementation of the future MoUs in Haut Katanga and Kasai Oriental.” Given that the MoU and SOP Manual is implemented by multiple donors, could USAID confirm it will provide final approval on the revised SOP Manual?

Answer: USAID confirms it will review and approve the revised SOP manual that must comply with the U.S.G. rules and regulations.

32. Province-level health ministry structure (DPS, Division Provinciale de la Santé): What role USAID envisions in the interactions between provincial-level health ministry structures (DPS, Division Provinciale de la Santé), namely: a. how will such structures be made compatible with the broad national health strategies as described in section I, including the PSVS, PAO (Programme d’Appui Opérationel) and health financing? b. How does USAID foresee the extent of their involvement in the design of PAO and health financing initiatives as described in Objective 1 and the PSVS? (RFP reference page 12)

Answer (a): The activity must align and support the Government of DRC decentralization of health programming to provinces.

Answer (b): The elaboration of the PAO follows a defined process. The Activity must support and align with the PAO.

33. Accountability Systems and Provincial Parliamentarians: Strengthen accountability by engaging provincial parliamentarians in the health governance process is mentioned under Objective 3 (RFP reference page 14). Please provide additional guidance for intended level of involvement and how USAID will track the effect parliamentary engagement has on health funding and implementation.

Answer: In a performance based acquisition, the offerors are expected to indicate how they intend to reach the target and objectives. The offeror should use the information provided in the attachment J. to describe their level of involvement and how they will track the effect parliamentary engagement will have on health financing and implementation.

34. In Outcome/Result 3.5, the RFP states that increased civil society engagement in domestic financial resource mobilization and planning for health will be achieved. Please clarify what role (or contributions) local NGOs might play in this process, and how governance structures will respond to or mediate this effort. (RFP reference page14)

Answer: The offeror should use the information provided in the attachment J. to describe how this requirement can be achieved.

35. Could USAID be more specific about the kind of innovative governance systems that you would like to see as part of provincial strengthening? (reference RFP page 90): “Explore innovative partnerships to improve governance…” Please provide more elaboration on what types of innovations in partnerships would be acceptable, and/or benchmark examples where strengthening governance has been clearly successful, with some criteria for judging relative success.

Answer: See Statement of Objectives. Offerors must propose approaches based on the context of DRC and their expertise.

36. What kinds of innovative financial mechanisms is USAID looking to ask offerors to identify or develop to increase domestic financial resources for health services? Exactly what would be ‘innovative’ here? How does USAID define that term? (RFP reference page 12)

Answer: The Offerors, based on their expertise and understanding of the context of health financing in DRC must propose innovative (new in the context of DRC) approaches to increase domestic funding for health programming at provincial level.

37. When improving client-centered care in terms of service delivery, is USAID looking for innovation in services delivery in rural areas (p13)? For example, would USAID be interested in decentralizing service delivery models? In task-shifting innovation, leadership models?

Answer: The offerors, based on their expertise and knowledge of the DRC must propose approaches to improve client centered care.

38. Will each Sub-Recipient (SR) be required to work in each of the 4 provinces?

Answer: The implementation design is the Offeror’s decision.

39. What does it mean for each SR to be responsible for managing a province? What will it look like?

Answer: See response above.

40. How do we get more information on the technology tools developed under the MOU for

Lualaba and Haut Lomami provinces as referenced under objective 2?

Answer: These tools are validated and used by the Divisions Provinciales de la Santé” (

DPS of Lualaba and Haut Lomami.

41. What health zones, health areas, and health facilities are we expected to implement activities in within the four provinces? How many of each?

Answer: The Santé Gouvernance Activity is to be implemented in all health areas included in all health zones located in the targeted provinces.

42. Result: Access to health service by vulnerable segments of population increased, does this also include financial accessibility? Who are the referenced vulnerable populations in

DRC?

Answer: The Offerors, based on their understanding of the context of DRC, need to define the vulnerable populations. The Offerors must address the factors that limit accessibility and use of primary care services.

43. Roadmap towards Self-reliance: Is USAID expecting that 100% of the funding to support health be mobilized locally at the end of the project?

Answer: The Road Map needs to define strategies to reach financial self-reliance over time, beyond the life of the activity. See available guidance in the RFP and attachment J.1.

44. What percent of funding does USAID expect to be mobilized locally by the end of the project?

Answer: The percentage of funding will depend on DPS and provinces which will be finalized through the Roadmap towards self-reliance plan as mentioned in Section F.5.

45. Are there existing competencies for health workers in the DRC and should they be endorsed by MOH?

Answer: The Offerors must demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the health context in the DRC and at provincial level.

46. Do we have a copy of the Road Map towards Self-Reliance?

Answer: It is a reporting requirement and an indicator. Please review Section F.5 and attachment J.1.

47. On page 89, section L.7 includes: “The draft AMELP should include…. Type of evaluation, methodology, timeline, and how to ensure avoiding conflict of interest.” USAID requests that Offerors include information on the planned evaluations in Draft AMELP.

a. Are there specific external evaluations that Offerors must include in the Draft

AMELP?

Answer: External evaluation is expected per ADS 201.3.6.6. and USAID DRC’s internal evaluation standards. The offerors must describe how they would evaluate the results of the activity.

b. Are there any external evaluations that USAID plans to fund?

Answer: USAID is considering external evaluations.

48. On page 89, section L.7 includes: “The PWS must include the following sections, in the specified order” which also includes a section for “General Program Parameters.” Pages

8 and 9 of the SOO (Attachment J.1) includes “Guiding Principles.” Can USAID confirm that

Guiding Principles are the same as the “General Program Parameters”? If not, can USAID please define what is meant by “General Program Parameters”?

Answer: Please see the updated Section L.7.

49. Attachment J.1, SOO page 8, under Objective 3, the SOO states that “the Contractor must identify promising local civil society organizations in each province.” Will USAID elaborate on the “promising” dimension of local civil society organizations?

Answer: The contractor will be expected to work with USAID to identify promising organizations following the requirements specified under Section I.13.

50. Section L.7, RFP page 90 points to “See reference” for one of three required indicators for

Objective 2. In addition, the SOO page 3, in the description of key challenges for Objective

2, references quantitative findings from a population-based survey conducted in five provinces in the country. Will USAID provide the specific source of this reference?

Answer: Please see the link provided under Attachment J.7 for sources.

51. Will USAID clarify how liability for DPS subcontractor performance will be managed? Will this lie primarily with the contractor, or will USAID accept liability?

Answer: In a performance based acquisition, the offeror is expected to propose how they would achieve the objectives and targets. The Contractor is entirely responsible for the implementation of the Activity. The DPS will be paid through Fixed-Price

Subcontracts when deliverables are met. USAID will be substantially involved.

52. Attachment J.1 page 4 states, referring to the firm fixed price contracts, “The balance of funds not used during the first year must be reprogrammed for the following year.” Will

USAID confirm reprogramming unspent funds from a firm fixed price subcontract means the contractor should be prepared to increase the next year’s subcontract amount by the unspent amount from the previous year? If so, what limitations will there be on programming of funds carried over?

Answer: USAID confirms that unspent funds can be reprogrammed for the following year.

53. Attachment J.9, “Health Overview,” references the USAID Accelerator Activity

(Solicitation # 72066024RFA00006) 11 times, but not Sante Gouvernance. On page 7, the

Health Overview says, “Among children less than five years old, the malaria prevalence in the USAID Accelerator Activity targeted province is estimated at 14% of children in Sud-

Kivu, 41% in Kasai Central, and more than half of all children in Tanganyika and Lomami

(54%).” Will USAID release a revised “health overview” specific to the Sante Gouvernance opportunity and its targeted provinces?

Answer: The Annex Health Overview was specifically written for the USAID Accelerator activity. However, most of the health information in the annex applies to USAID Sante

Gouvernance. USAID shared the Health Overview for information. USAID does not intend to develop a revised health overview specific to Sante Gouvernance as information as shared under attachment J.9 is applicable for the USAID Sante

Gouvernance activity.

54. RFP page 88 states “Offerors must use the SOO of this solicitation (see Attachment J.1 to this RFP) to develop a Performance Work Statement (PWS) per FAR 37.602. The successful offeror’s PWS will become Section C of the resulting contract.” Attachment J.1 is written as a Performance Work Statement. Will USAID clarify whether the requirements contained in attachment J.1 are intended to be the final PWS or whether offerors are able to propose a different PWS that will be included in the awarded contract?

Answer: Attachment J.1 is written as a SOO. USAID confirms that Offerors must propose a Performance Work Statement (PWS) based on the Statement of Objectives.

55. Oral Presentation: The RFP states that “Offerors must be prepared to provide an oral presentation to USAID’s evaluation team using the submitted oral presentation slide deck”. Would it be acceptable to have two people from the organization present at the oral presentation? Is it expected that one of those be the designated Chief of Party? (RFP reference page 86)

Answer: Please see updated section L.7 which leaves it up to the offeror to determine the number of presenters and requires one of the presenters to be a proposed key personnel.. U

56. In responding to this proposal, we seek to meaningfully incorporate input from local stakeholders. To provide adequate time for local co-creation, would USAID consider extending the closing date and time for receipt of proposals to Tuesday, November 22, 2024?

Answer: USAID issued an RFI sharing the draft SOO of this activity for the industry feedback and we issued a synopsis of the actions 15 calendar days before issuing the

RFP. In addition, USAID is not requesting lengthy technical proposals. Hence, we will keep the original proposal submission due date to ensure USAID’s operational deadlines and planned processes.

57. On page 27, section F.7 includes: “USAID/DRC has identified two (2) Key Personnel positions, Chief of Party and Director of Finance and Operations. The two (2) Key personnel positions identified by USAID and minimum qualifications are shown below.”

Section L.7 on page 88 references “position descriptions and qualifications of key personnel positions” as part of the Management Plan. Finally, on page 102, the evaluation criteria 2 in Section M.2 include: “The proposed staffing plan, including Key Personnel, must demonstrate a reasonable structure, cost efficiency, and expertise to achieve the objectives of the SOO.”

a. Since the RFP is requesting that Offerors speak to a staffing plan and management plan, including Key Personnel positions and qualifications, please confirm that

Offerors may include Key Personnel names and their actual qualifications as part of the narrative around the management plan as described on page 88.

Answer: USAID confirms that Key Personnel names and qualifications may be included in the narrative in the management plan.

b. The RFP also identifies the Chief of Party and Director of Finance and Operations as two Key Personnel positions. May Offerors propose and name an additional Key

Personnel position for a total of three (3) positions?

Answer: Offerors must propose positions and names up to a total of five (5) Key

Personnel positions.

c. USAID provides detailed information on the qualifications for the two required Key

Personnel positions. However, for the Oral Presentation Slide Deck, USAID requires

Offerors to include position descriptions and qualifications for the two proposed Key

Personnel positions. Given that these descriptions are already provided by USAID, can USAID explain the difference between the qualifications listed on page 27 in

Section F and those required as part of the Oral Presentation Slide Deck on page 88?

Answer: Please see the updated section.

58. On page 87, section L.7 includes: “Oral presentation slides must have slide numbers and include a presentation cover sheet inclusive of proprietary data markings, presentation team (including a listing of names, positions, and company affiliations for each presenter), and presentation agenda.”

a. Would USAID allow offerors to include information regarding the cover sheet, presentation team, and presentation agenda to be included on three separate slides?

Answer: Offerors can use three separate slides for cover sheet, presentation team, and agenda. Offerors must ensure that the information provided can be explained within the time allocated per the RFP.

b. Please confirm that the presentation cover sheet(s) do not count against the 35-slide maximum?

Answer: Please see answer to question no. 30. USAID confirms that the cover sheet(s) do not count against the 35-slide limit.

59. On page 88, section L.7 includes: “Offerors must be prepared to provide an oral presentation to USAID’s evaluation team using the submitted oral presentation slide deck.” Could USAID please clarify how many presenters and attendees are allowed to attend each Offeror’s oral presentation?

Answer: Please see updated section L.7 which leaves it up to the offeror to determine the number of presenters and requires one of the presenters to be a proposed key personnel.

60. On page 88, section L.7 includes: “The Offeror’s presentation and responses to questions will be evaluated against the factors described in Section M.” Will the questions on the

Offeror’s presentation be provided to presenters in advance of the oral presentations?

Answer: USAID will not provide questions in advance.

61. On page 89, section L.7 includes: “The draft AMELP should include… Completion of the table below with the Offeror’s proposed targets and measurement for achievement per province.” Could USAID confirm that Offerors should provide annual targets in addition to life of activity targets for the USAID required indicators? The performance indicator table instructions require annual targets but the required indicator table does not specify either way.

Answer: USAID clarifies that for this table, the Offerors are to propose life activity targets and measurement for achievement per province.

62. On page 93, section L.8 (G) includes: “Passthrough Fixed Price Subcontracts to DPS- The total amount for the fixed price subcontracts to the four DPS is expected to be at least

30% to 40% of the total estimated cost of the Contract with the Prime. The level of funding for these subcontracts will decrease over time as provincial domestic funding to provincial health services increases.” Page 4 of Attachment J.1 notes that “The Fixed-Price subcontract amount will be defined on an annual basis, based on the Plan d’Action

Operationnel, the provincial annual budget plan, and capacities of provinces to mobilize domestic financial resources. The annual budget plan must be developed, approved, and regularly reviewed by the provincial authorities, the Contractor, USAID and other

Development Partners who might join the MOU.” In addition, Attachment J.1 notes that

“during the first year of implementation, as the Provincial budgets will have been defined in 2024 for year 2025, the deliverables for the new provinces (Kasai Oriental and Haut

Katanga) will be mostly defining the MoU and its annexes per program. Financial contributions to the MoU from the existing MoU provinces (Haut Lomami and Lualaba) are expected to continue.”

a. The RFP notes that Offerors must make passthrough fixed price subcontracts to DPS.

Would USAID allow Offerors to use fixed amount awards or fixed obligation grants rather than fixed price subcontracts?

Answer: USAID confirms that the Contractor must issue and manage Fixed-Price

Subcontracts to the DPS.

b. Given that the amounts associated with future annual budget plans are as yet unknown, can USAID confirm that pass-through amounts for DPS should appear as a lump sum in Offeror’s budgets, with the expectation that exact amounts per province and per year will be determined during the annual budget planning process?

Answer: USAID confirms that in the Offerors’ budgets, the funding level for Fixed

Price-Subcontracts per province can be provided as a lump sum per year per province.

c. To ensure an equitable starting point amongst offerors, can USAID provide the anticipated amounts of pass-through subcontracts as a plug figure for Year 1 of the project?

Answer: Offerors must estimate the level of funding for Fixed-Price Subcontract per province per year per Offerors’ experience and understanding of DRC context.

63. On page 101, section M.2 includes: “The evaluation will prioritize the oral presentation and the slide deck while the performance work statement and the AMELP will be reviewed as references.” Further, evaluation criteria 1 for “Technical Approach and plan to achieve intended results as described in the SOO” does not reference the PWS and

AMELP. Could USAID clarify whether the PWS and AMELP documents will be evaluated as part of the Technical Approach?

Answer: The PWS and AMELP documents will be used as references to the presentations. .

64. To effectively develop the PWS, AMELP, Year 1 workplan, and budget will USAID confirm that all elements for the Determinations and Findings (D&F) requirement contained in

ADS 302.3.3 Contracting and Subcontracting with a Foreign Governmental Organization, including the responsibility determinations (ADS302.3.3.d(xv)) and securing the approval of the Senior Procurement Executive (ADS 302.3.3.e), are completed? If not, will USAID share the current status of each element of the D&F and which elements the contractor will be responsible for developing content? Additionally, will USAID confirm they expect these actions can be completed to meet the annual subcontracting and implementation timelines to align to PAO implementation?

Answer: USAID confirms that all elements for the Determinations and Findings (D&F) requirement contained in ADS 302.3.3 Contracting and Subcontracting with a Foreign

Governmental Organization, including the responsibility determinations

(ADS302.3.3.d(xv)) and securing the approval of the Senior Procurement Executive (ADS

302.3.3.e) were completed with approval of fixed price subcontracts.

65. Throughout the RFP there are references to both “fixed price subcontracts” and “MOUs” when agreements with DPS are referenced. For example, J.1 page 2 states “cover all the fixed amount subcontracts…provided through the MOU." Will USAID confirm the contractor will be expected to award Firm Fixed Price subcontracts, in compliance with

FAR and the requirements of ADS 302.3.3.C, to the DPS, and not MOUs? And that MOU should be replaced with “FFP Subcontract”?

Answer: A MoU is a legal framework signed between the Province (The Governor) and

USAID and possibly others. Under the MoU, USAID through the Contractor will issue

Fixed-Priced Subcontracts.

66. To mitigate risks and ensure alignment with DPS PAO implementation timelines, would

USAID be willing to change the requirement to award FFP subcontracts to the DPS and instead permit the contractor to award Fixed Amount Award Grants Under Contract?

Answer: USAID confirms that the Contractor must issue and manage Fixed Price

Subcontracts to the DPS as approved in USAID’s D&F.

67. Will USAID confirm that, as subcontractors, the DPS will be required to provide labor hour reporting information to support the contractor’s compliance with FAR 52.204-14 Service

Contract Reporting Requirements, which in part requires the contractor to report “the number of direct labor hours expended on the services performed during the previous

Government fiscal year”, including for all FFP service contracts exceeding $500,000 (ref.

FAR 4.1703 (a)(2)(ii)(C) Reporting Requirements)?

Answer: Yes, USAID confirms that subcontractors, including DPS, will be required to provide labor hour reporting information to support the prime contractor’s compliance with FAR 52.204-14, which mandates reporting of direct labor hours for all firm-fixed-price service subcontracts exceeding $500,000, as per FAR 4.1703(a)(2)(ii)(C).

68. In Section M.2, page 102, the RFP states “The proposed staffing plan, including Key

Personnel, must demonstrate a reasonable structure, cost efficiency, and expertise to achieve the objectives of the SOO.” Will USAID confirm ‘expertise’ means offerors should provide an overview of Key Personnel candidates’ expertise and qualifications to fulfill the role?

Answer: USAID confirms that offerors must provide an overview of Key Personnel candidates’ expertise and qualifications to fulfill the role. Please see updated section L.7.

[End of questions and answers]