Amendment 1_25R00007.pdf

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 1 of 9

Amendment No. 1

RFP No. 75N93025R00007

“Management and Operation of the Mali Service Center (MSC)”

Solicitation Number:

Amendment Number:

Amendment Issue Date:

75N93023R00011

One (1)

December 31, 2024

Response Date:

January 16, 2025 at 3:00 PM, Local Time (Unchanged)

Issued By: Sevag Kasparian Contracting Officer

OA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS

Points of Contact: PRIMARY:

Sevag Kasparian, Contracting Officer Sevag.Kasparian@nih.gov Phone: 240-669-5177

SECONDARY:

Rosemary Gomes, Contracting Officer Rosemary.Gomes@nih.gov Phone: 240-669-5374

The purpose of this amendment is to: provide responses to questions from potential offerors regarding the solicitation.

Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment by identifying this amendment number and date of the amendment on each copy of the proposal submitted. Failure to receive your acknowledgement may result in the rejection of your proposal. Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Responses to Questions from Potential Offerors:

Question 1:

Please clarify if the Single Principal Investigator/Project Director is the same role as the Project Director listed under “US/Home Office” on Page 2 of “Attachment 7: Additional Business Proposal Instructions and Uniform Cost Assumptions.”

Response to Question 1:

Yes.

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 2 of 9

Question 2:

On RFP Page 66, Section L.5, Separation of Technical and Business Proposals, the solicitation states that the technical proposal must include direct costs and resource costs information. Should that read “business proposal”? Please clarify.

Response to Question 2:

Question 3:

Can offerors propose additional personnel that is consistent with its technical and management approach aside from the staffing list reflected in the matrix on “Attachment 7: Additional Business Proposal Instructions and Uniform Cost Assumptions”?

Response to Question 3:

Question 4:

Who is the incumbent on the contract?

Response to Question 4:

The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG)

Question 5:

What is the page limit for the technical response to the Sample Task Order? Is it a separate document, or is it included within the 30-page limit for the IDIQ?

Response to Question 5:

The Sample Task Order Technical Proposal will have a separate page limit of 15 pages, with the same formatting and restrictions of the IDIQ Technical Proposal page limit stated in Attachment 1 - Packaging and Delivery of Proposal, formatting and page limitations.

Question 6:

For the IDIQ Statement of Work, are the documents at the Mali Service Center in French or English?

Response to Question 6:

French is the official language in Mali, however translation to English is required for NIAID documentation and communication, such as COA receipts, budgets for NIH PIs, contract documents, etc. So, documents will be in French and English.

Question 7:

RFP Page 81: FAR 52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards, could you clarify whether the agency plans to issue a single award or multiple awards for this contract?

Response to Question 7:

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 3 of 9

See RFP page 63, it is anticipated that one award will be made from this solicitation. However, as stated on RFP page 69 and 81, NIAID reserves the right to make a single award, multiple awards, or no award at all to the Solicitation.

Question 8:

RFP Page 83: Evaluation Factors for Award, are offerors required to submit a Cost Proposal for the IDIQ or the Sample Task Order?

Response to Question 8:

Both, offerors are required to submit a business proposal for the IDIQ and the Sample Task Order.

See Attachment 6 - Additional Business Proposal Instructions, Tables 1 and 2. See Attachment 9_Breakdown of Proposed Costs.

See Attachment 7- Sample Task Order SOW and Instructions. A T&M proposal for the Sample Task Order using Attachment 9.

Question 9:

RFP Page 84, the RFP states, "The offeror should highlight any operations or organizational experience within, or in direct collaborations with, Francophone Africa." Could you clarify if this is intended as a past performance reference?

Response to Question 9:

This is referring to Criterion 3: Corporate Experience, in Section M - Evaluation Criteria, as one of the technical evaluation factors.

Question 10:

RFP Page 84 & 85, In the RFP, is Corporate Experience considered the same as a Past Performance reference?

Response to Question 10:

No, two different areas of the RFP. As stated above in question # 9, Corporate Experience is a technical evaluation factors in Section M. Past Performance can relate in general, however this is specific to Section L, and has specific instructions how to submit and will be evaluated per Section M, section f. Past Performance Factor.

Question 11:

SOW for IDIQ. The SOW references “key professional and technical personnel,” but it does not clearly define which positions the Government considers “key” or specify any minimum educational or certification requirements for each. Could the Government clarify which positions must be designated as key personnel and whether there are any minimum required qualifications (e.g., specific degrees, professional licenses) for these roles?

Response to Question 11:

At a minimum, the following will be identified as Key personnel:

• Project Director

• MSC Director

• MSC Deputy Director

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 4 of 9

Question 12:

SOW for IDIQ. The SOW indicates that certain staff must be fluent in English and French to engage with both U.S. and Malian stakeholders. However, it does not detail the level of language proficiency or whether any certification of bilingual capability is required. Can the Government provide guidance on the required proficiency level (e.g., advanced business proficiency) for French- and English-speaking roles, and any documentation the Offeror must provide to prove staff fluency?

Response to Question 12:

Full professional proficiency. No, documentation is not required to provide proof.

Question 13:

SOW for IDIQ. The SOW does not explicitly state whether certain positions must be on-site in Mali or if remote/telework is permissible for certain support functions. Could the Government clarify which roles (if any) must be physically located in Mali and whether partial or full telework arrangements are allowable for other positions, as long as contractual requirements are met?

Response to Question 13:

MSC staff, including Director, Deputy Director, and technical staff, must be based in Mali.

Business at the MSC is often conducted in-person, and there is an expectation that USTTB leadership, admin, and PIs can stop by in person for meetings/discussions. Telework may be permissible as long as business needs are met.

Question 14:

SOW for IDIQ. The SOW indicates the Contractor may use subcontractors, but Section 5 also requires documenting the qualifications of subcontractor staff. It is unclear if the Government expects similar documentation (resumes, endorsements) for all subcontractor team members or only for key subcontractor personnel. Does the Government require full resumes and qualifications for all subcontractor staff, or only for subcontractor key personnel? If the latter, how should Offerors differentiate which subcontractor roles are considered “key”?

Response to Question 14:

All subcontractors.

Question 15:

SOW for IDIQ. Section 5 requests resumes, endorsements, and explanations of previous efforts.

It is not explicit if certain references or letters of endorsement must come from previous clients or if internal corporate endorsements suffice. Are external client references or letters of endorsement required to demonstrate relevant experience, or would internal corporate statements of previous efforts be acceptable? If external references are preferred, is there a minimum or maximum number of references needed?

Response to Question 15:

Internal endorsements and statements of previous efforts to demonstrate experience are acceptable. Depending on their position, Malian staff may not have previous clients or other external references available. Therefore, it is not a requirement for technical review purposes.

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 5 of 9

Question 16:

SOW for IDIQ. The SOW does not indicate whether staff must be fully onboarded by the contract start date or if a phased onboarding approach is acceptable. Additionally, Section 5 references “availability,” but does not clarify if Offerors can propose contingency hires (i.e., staff to be hired post-award). Is a phased onboarding approach acceptable, and can Offerors propose “to be named” staff with letters of intent, as long as we demonstrate that all required positions will be filled before the performance of related tasks begins?

Response to Question 16:

The primary objective is to ensure continuity of services provided by the MSC during a transition.

Staff should be fully onboarded by the contract start date, or the offeror should have a plan in place to ensure work needs are still being met during a phased onboarding approach.

Question 17:

SOW for IDIQ. Section 5 requests an LOE estimate, but does not say how Offerors should handle unanticipated surges in workload (e.g., additional field trips or urgent financial transactions).

Does the Government expect Offerors to propose a base LOE with an optional surge capacity, or is the Offeror expected to reassess LOE for each Task Order as new requirements emerge?

Response to Question 17:

It is anticipated that the government will have offerors propose an estimated Base LOE and unanticipated surges of workload may be captured with an Option or reassess LOE for each Task Order as new requirements emerge.

Question 18:

SOW for Sample Task Order. Does the Sample Task Order also require pricing that the offerors should submit with their proposals? If so, please give instructions on how to price the sample task order and using what pricing template.

Response to Question 18:

Yes, Attachment 9 - Breakdown of Proposed Cost, is the template to utilize for the Sample Task Order. Also, in Attachment 7 - Sample Task Order Statement of Work and Deliverables, see the Note at the top of page 1 for further instruction.

Question 19:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The Task Order SOW requires conducting monthly meetings with DIR labs (LIG, LMIV, LMVR, LPD, and LV) and in-country staff. It does not specify details such as typical meeting duration, preferred scheduling, or language requirements. Could the Government clarify the expected length of each monthly meeting, the approximate number of attendees, and whether the meetings should be conducted in English or French (or both) to accommodate Malian and U.S.-based staff?

Response to Question 19:

Number of attendees will depend on the lab. Duration estimate would be 1 hour in length, although this may need to change based on the needs of the lab. Meetings will be primarily conducted in English, however the offeror needs to have the capacity to facilitate translation as needed.

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 6 of 9

Question 20:

SOW for Sample Task Order. Section B states that there are no additional clauses specific to the Task Order beyond the base IDIQ, yet the Task Order SOW calls for monthly budgets, reconciliation, pipeline analyses, etc. To accurately estimate the staffing plan (including Project Manager, financial/accounting personnel, administrative support), can the Government provide an approximate frequency or volume of budget updates, reconciliations, and pipeline analyses needed per laboratory?

Response to Question 20:

The budgets, reconciliation, and pipeline analyses should all be conducted monthly (at a minimum) for each lab, ICER Core, and MSC administration. There is potential for additional ad hoc requests.

Question 21:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The SOW specifically calls out reconciliation of spending shortfalls or surpluses for each DIR lab. However, the expected transaction volume or number of expense categories is not explicitly stated. Could the Government share historical data or at least an approximate range of the monthly expenditures (e.g., number of transactions, typical categories) for each DIR lab, so that Offerors can plan the level of effort for monthly reconciliation?

Response to Question 21:

The approximate budget amount was included in Attachment 6 - Additional Business Proposal Instructions.

Question 22:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The Task Order indicates identification of staffing needs tied to a separate contract, but does not specify how extensive that interplay may be (e.g., level of coordination, approvals). In preparing the Staffing Plan, how closely integrated must Contractor personnel be with the “Support Services for the NIAID Mali ICER” contract staff, and what coordination responsibilities does the Government anticipate in terms of hiring, payroll, or day-to-day management?

Response to Question 22:

This is outlined in Attachment 3 - IDIQ Statement of Work, Section K. These two contracts are closely coordinated. “Support Services for the NIAID Mali ICER” includes Malian PIs and ICER staff that work with MSC to procure materials, reconcile budgets, submit receipts, etc

Question 23:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The Task Order requires a monthly pipeline analysis for each laboratory, indicating total funds, expenditures, and the balance remaining. However, the SOW does not specify a required format or data fields. Are there any standard templates or formatting requirements for the pipeline analyses (e.g., Excel, PDF, or system-based reports), or should Offerors propose their own format as part of the technical approach?

Response to Question 23:

Offerors should propose their own format as part of technical approach.

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 7 of 9

Question 24:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The Task Order requires monthly invoices to be submitted within two months of the billing period, with separate line items for each laboratory. The SOW does not clarify if the Government wants a combined invoice that lists all labs or separate invoices for each. For invoicing, does the Government prefer one consolidated invoice with line items for each DIR lab, or multiple separate invoices (one per lab)? Also, are electronic submissions via email acceptable, or is there a preferred portal/system for invoice submission?

Response to Question 24:

One combined invoice, with separate sections for each laboratory. Line items should also be included for each laboratory. Additionally, for invoice submission see RFP Section G, 3 - Invoice Submission/Contract Financing Request and Contract Financial Report.

Question 25:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The Task Order states a final financial report is due two weeks before the end of the period, detailing any projected remaining balance. It does not define the contract period length or whether there might be option periods. Can the Government confirm the anticipated performance period for this sample Task Order (e.g., 12 months, with potential option periods), and whether the final report must project unliquidated obligations for each DIR lab separately?

Response to Question 25:

Assume 12 months for the base period of performance with two additional option periods for 12-months each. Final report should also project unliquidated obligations for each DIR lab separately.

Question 26:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The SOW references multiple meetings—some with DIR labs, some with COR, CS, and in-country staff. It does not say whether these are on-site in Mali, via tele/videoconference, or rotating between locations. For planning travel budgets and remote collaboration tools, does the Government have a preferred method of communication (e.g., Zoom, Teams, or in-person), and how often do they expect in-person meetings in Mali versus virtual meetings with U.S.-based staff?

Response to Question 26:

The majority of meetings with DIR labs, COR, and CS will be virtual. There are typically 1 to 2 in-person meetings with U.S. staff per year.

In-country meetings between MSC staff and USTTB/ICER staff are typically in-person, though some may be virtual. Note: Business at the MSC is often conducted in-person, and there is an expectation that USTTB leadership, admin, and PIs can stop by in person for meetings/discussions.

Zoom is the preferred platform for tele/videoconferences, but other similar acceptable platforms may be considered.

Question 27:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The SOW states the Contractor must furnish all necessary resources not provided by the Government. However, it is unclear if there are Government-furnished offices, IT systems, or software to be utilized. Will any Government-furnished equipment (e.g., office space, computers, or accounting systems) be available to facilitate

AMENDMENT #1, RFP No. 75N93025R00007 Page 8 of 9 monthly reporting and pipeline analyses? If so, please specify which items or systems the Contractor may utilize.

Response to Question 27:

The MSC is currently renting a facility near USTTB for office space. In addition to Attachment 8

- List of Government-Furnished Property, the Government will provide access to a procurement portal to facilitate ordering and approval processes.

Question 28:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The Task Order calls for specific financial and administrative tasks but does not set minimum staffing qualifications or labor categories (e.g., Finance Manager, Project Coordinator). To comply with Section 5 (Qualifications of Personnel) in the base instructions, could the Government clarify if there are preferred labor categories (or skill sets) for key personnel on this sample Task Order (e.g., accountant vs. senior project manager vs.

administrative assistant)?

Response to Question 28:

See Attachment 6 - Additional Business Proposal Instructions, Technical Cost Assumptions, direct labor staff.

Question 29:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The SOW references monthly tasks but also includes potential changes in scope if additional laboratory or travel requirements arise. It does not outline how the Government will handle unanticipated or urgent needs (e.g., a sudden high-volume purchase request). Should Offerors include a proposed “surge” capacity (additional labor hours or staff) in the event of unexpected expansions in monthly disbursement or reconciliation needs? If so, how should this be reflected in the proposed staffing plan and costs?

Response to Question 29:

Offerors can propose their approach for surge capacity (note: see question # 17 above) and implement in their proposed staffing plan and costs.

Question 30:

SOW for Sample Task Order. The SOW indicates that the Offeror’s response should include “the project management plan, with associated costs.” However, it does not state whether costs should be presented in a Fixed Price, T&M, or Cost-Reimbursement style, or how to align with the IDIQ’s indefinite nature. Could the Government clarify whether the sample Task Order response should be structured under a cost-reimbursement format consistent with the base IDIQ, and if the standard spreadsheets (Direct Labor, Materials, Travel, etc.) from the IDIQ RFP should be tailored specifically to this sample Task Order?

Response to Question 30:

For the Sample Task Order a Time & Materials business proposal shall be submitted utilizing Attachment 9 - Breakdown of Proposed Costs.

END of Amendment No. 1 - RFP No. 75N93025R00007