95332418Q01230001_US_final_signed_by_CO.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE

DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

I. Modifications for the RFQ:

1. In Section C - Description/Specifications/Statement of Work, part C.8 Subcontracts, add “MCC does not require exclusive relationships between contractors and subcontractors. Subcontractors can partner with several prime contractors at the same time.”

2. In SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO CONTRACTORS, L. 5

QUOTE PREPARATION & INSTRUCTIONS:

a) Delete “Volume II: Organizational Past Performance (max 16 pages)” and replace with

“Volume II: Past Performance (max 16 pages)”;

b) Add to the Narrative Summary (max 8 pages) “c) examples of past performance information for the contractor’s predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement when such information is relevant to the SOW’s requirements.”

3. In Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, L.6 Quote Submission Instructions, add “No phone calls will be responded to for this RFQ, please submit your questions in writing.”

4. Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, part M.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:

a) delete “Factor 2: Organizational Past Performance” and replace with “Factor 2: Past Performance”;

b) add “Quoters who will submit a past performance information for this RFQ will be evaluated according to the adjectival rating table in Section M.3. Quoters who will not submit past performance will receive a neutral rating.”

II. Questions and answers

1. Please clarify the terms of Section C.7 Conflict of Interest. Would bidding on this opportunity preclude the awardee from future PEFPAR opportunities in Lesotho for all USG agencies involved?

A - MCC is only responsible for MCC awards. We can’t comment on any other potential PEPFAR awards by other agencies. For future MCC or MCA that includes implementation projects or activities that follow the due diligence work under this contract it may be determined that a conflict of interest exists at that time.

2. On page 31 of the RFQ it states “Performance of the work under this contract is subject to the written technical direction of the Contracting Officer Representative (COR), and any Government Project

Monitors, (PM)… “. It then notes on page 33 “The Contracting Officer may designate a Government representative to act as the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or Project Monitor (PM)…” These two statements seem to indicate that there either be one or multiple persons involved in the day-to-day

Technical Direction. Can MCC please provide clarification as to how the Technical Direction will be provided?

A – there will be a designated COR and two PMs assigned to this program. Please see clause below for the

COR and PM functions and designation. Also a sample of COR letter is attached to this modification.

G.1 MCC 52.201-70 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) AND/OR PROJECT

MONITOR (PM) (JULY 2012)

3. MCC typically performs impact evaluations related to its Compacts. However, a search of MCC’s website only noted that there would performance evaluations and health facility surveys conducted in regards to the previous Compact in Lesotho and it does not appear that results of those surveys have been made public. Was an impact evaluation conducted? Are the results of the performance evaluation(s) and health facility survey(s) available? Will any of these studies provide facility usage and catchment information, including cross-border accessing of services?

A – Performance evaluation(s) and health facility survey(s) are not available. An impact evaluation of the

Lesotho II compact is currently being conducted by MCC and results are not yet available for public dissemination.

4. MCC provides a good epidemiological overview of the HIV/AIDS situation in Lesotho. More recent results have become available, though, through the use of the Population-based Impact Assessment (PHIAs) funded by PEPFAR and implemented by ICAP. When applicable, can bidders use these results and data in their proposals rather than MCC’s figures?

A – MCC encourages bidders to use the most recent data available to update or improve upon the epidemiological overview provided in the RFQ, including the Lesotho Population-based HIV Impact Assessment (LePHIA) 2016/17.

5. The RFQ emphasizes previous HIV/AIDS interventions which have focused on textile workers in Lesotho. Though employment in garment factories remains significant it has declined from its peak in 2004 of approximately 53,000 persons to approximately 40,000 currently. In proposing the Assessment Plan as part of Objective 2, may bidders also suggest other employment sectors which MCC may want to consider in the design and development phase?

A - The situational analysis included in the RFP was provided as background and should not be considered directive. Bidders ability to analyze the current situation in Lesotho and propose an Assessment Plan that will provide the information and recommendations required for MCC to adequately assess the concepts and projects proposed by the Government of Lesotho is one of the criteria MCC will use to evaluate proposals. Bidders are welcome to suggest other employment sectors which MCC may want to consider in the compact design and development phase.

6. The RFQ notes that “MCC's Root Cause Analysis to date has identified two main dimensions of the broader Poor Health related to HIV/AIDS constraint: 1) high rate of new infections; and 2) poor and inefficient service delivery. The Contractor shall work with MCC and the GoL to assess roots causes and potential interventions, and make recommendations.” Given the multi-sectoral nature of HIV/AIDS, can

MCC clarify if bidders are being asked to identify a root cause for the high incidence of HIV infection and poor and inefficient service delivery?

A - Once contracted the successful bidder will be tasked to identify and prioritize the root causes of the poor health related to HIV/AIDS constraint, bidders are not requested to undertake this task as part of their bid submission. In order to assess bidders general capacity to identify and prioritize root causes of the poor health to HIV/AIDS constraint in Lesotho, MCC has requested bidders respond to Objective 1 on page

45 of the RFP:

Objective 1:

In two pages or less address each issue under Technical Directive #1, Objective 1, (a) and (b) below. The response to this objective should be included in the Contractor's proposal, and will be used to evaluate the proposal. No further deliverables will be required related to this objective after contract signing, except as the issues are relevant to Objective 2 below.

Objective 1: Address the relationship, dynamics, challenges and opportunities of each issue as related to

Lesotho high rate of new HIV infections:

a) Electronic medical records system

b) Male identity

Note: The two issues presented above are not indicative of MCC priorities and are selected as illustrative examples to evaluate offeror skills and abilities only.

7. Is the compact development team (LMDA) receiving technical assistance? If so, can MCC provide more information on the structure and nature of that technical assistance?

A – LMDA is not currently receiving technical assistance.

8. Given MCC’s focus on economic measures (e.g. Economic Rate of Return, Cost-Benefit Analysis), can

MCC provide clarification on how much weight bidders should give to these type of measures when examining evidence based interventions as part of the technical approach within the Technical Capacity

Narrative?

A – In the Technical Capacity narrative there is not an expectation that bidders will examine evidence based interventions except as they relate to Technical Directive #1, Objective 1, (a) and (b) as part of their proposal. See Question #6 for additional detail. Therefore, there is not an expectation that economic measures will be addressed in the examination of evidence based interventions.

Bidders should make clear the proposed personnel who has experience conducting quantitative cost-benefit analyses for health and/or HIV/AIDS interventions including estimates of net present value, benefit-cost ratios, and/or economic rates of return, and poverty/distributional analysis. Bidders should also make clear their organizational past performance (if relevant) conducting cost-benefit and beneficiary analyses of proposed projects, providing information for these type of assessments or critically analyzing assumptions used to estimate an economic rate of return, and to estimate the distribution of benefits across poverty quartiles and gender.

9. The RFQ asks that “The CVs of proposed key personnel shall be limited to 4 pages each and be in chronological order.” Can MCC clarify what it means by chronological order?

A – In chorological order means listing experience starting from the most recent one and going back, for example: Program officer 2016- current, Technical Officer 20014-1016, etc.

10. The RFQ states “The contractor shall submit a technical approach for the Section(s) for which it is submitting a quote.” Can MCC clarify whether this means that contractors can bid for only certain section/phases/deliverables within the RFQ?

A – the contractor shall submit a complete quote for the whole SOW.

11. Do factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the evaluation criteria carry equal weight?

A – Section M.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors states “The selection factors and sub-factors for this project are listed below in descending order of importance” meaning the Factor 1 is the most important, then Factor 2 is less important than factor 1 and Factor 3 is less important than Factor 2.

12. Does MCC envision a compact that would include interventions nationwide? Or in select districts?

A – Compact coverage has not yet been determined. Coverage decisions are dependent on the type of interventions proposed by the Government of Lesotho and approved by MCC.

13. Is an in-country subcontractor expected to be exclusive, or can an in-country subcontractor appear in multiple bids?

A – MCC does not require subcontractors to be exclusive with only one quoter, subcontractors can partner with several companies.

14. Can MCC please confirm that CLINS in the Labor Rates table on page 9 of the RFQ are also referred to as “Item Number” in the table under Section B.3, Schedule of Services and Payment starting on page 7 of the RFQ?

A – Item Number, 0001A Direct Labor in the table under Section B.3, Schedule of Services and Payment starting on page 7 of the RFQ refers to the CLINS in the Labor Rates table on page 9 of the RFQ.

15. Page 10 of the RFQ in the Total Labor Hours table, MCC has assigned different labor hours to the 8 key specialist positions, but there is no description of what each specialist should focus on. Can MCC clarify why the hours have been assigned in this way?

A - MCC has tried to provide sufficient information to allow bidders maximum flexibility to structure their consultant team in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The Total Labor Hours table is meant to exemplify that consultants with different amounts of expertise or relevance to the tasks required in the SOW will have varying levels of LOE.

16. Starting on page 11 of the RFQ, under section C.2 – Background, there are multiple references.

However there is no bibliography. Can MCC please provide the bibliography? There is a reference on page 44, section J.2 of Annex Two – Section C Endnotes but Annex Two is missing.

A – Please see the www.fbo.gov RFQ announcement to see the uploaded Annex two. The annex contains the links that could not be inserted into the RFQ CLM document.

17. 4. Page 13 of the RFQ in the Compact Development Timeline table there is a reference to “*609(g) request and Agreement”. Can MCC please clarify what this signifies?

A- 609(g) are funds used by MCC country teams to support compact design and development.

18. Page 34 of the RFQ references that “the contractor may propose more than 1 person per position to enhance the team’s expertise.” Can MCC clarify if more than one person is proposed per position, would two or more people be considered key personnel? Can MCC also clarify the “positions” that are referred to here? Is MCC referring to the specialists and if yes, does MCC have specific positions for each specialist?

A – If the contractor propose two people for one position, then the total number of key personnel will be increased accordingly. The positions referred to are:

1. Team Leader

2. Reducing Burden of HIV/AIDS Specialist – 7 people

The term "Reducing Burden of HIV/AIDS" specialist is a broad term to indicate a specialist with skills, experience and expertise listed in Section C, TABLE 2: Qualifications/experience that the Team Should

Cover. The offeror should replace the title "Reducing Burden of HIV/AIDS" Specialist with a position title that best reflects the skills, experience or expertise held by the consultant proposed. At least eight people should be identified as key personnel. If the contractor proposes a team of less than eight, all proposed personnel will be key personnel. If more than eight people are proposed then the contractor has the option to make consultants in excess of eight, non-key personnel.

19. On page 53 of the RFQ, under the Organizational Past Performance description, MCC requires

“examples of previous assignments to successfully reduce the burden of HIV/AIDS within the past 12-15 years, preferably in the Southern African region… Previous successful experience shall demonstrate ability to both design and implement programs that have reduced the burden of HIV citing project, regional, national level impact, result or outcome…” Can MCC kindly confirm whether this must be organizational performance or team performance? If team members jointly have this experience and are managed by a highly skilled analysis team will this meet MCC’s evaluation criteria?

A – Submission of an organizational past performance is the requirement for this RFQ. Organizations that have not successfully undertaken assignments to reduce the burden of HIV/AIDS within the past 12-

15 years will be evaluated according to the evaluation factors in Section M. In a case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. If a quoter will submit a past performance for this requirement, the quoter will be evaluated according to the adjectival rating table in Section M.3 This RFQ expressly requires that the past performance information to be furnished, where the information is readily available to the quoter. In case the quoter submitted no past performance, the quoter will not be rated favorably or unfavorably and will receive a neutral rating.

20. Similarly, if a sub-contractor to the prime contractor has the past organizational performance in health system strengthening implementation, would this meet MCC’s evaluation criteria?

A - Sub-contractors organizational past performance can be used to meet the evaluation criteria, although it should be clearly justified in Volume II Organizational Past Performance why the sub-contractor is not being proposed as the lead and is proposed as a subcontractor. The technical http://www.fbo.gov/ evaluation therefore will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement when such information is relevant to the SOW’s requirements in this

RFQ.

21. Would MCC consider revising the evaluation sub-criteria a) under Factor 3: Organizational Past Performance, page 57 of the RFQ to include “Demonstrated experience satisfactorily completing similar assignments to reduce the burden of HIV/AIDS through context specific health system strengthening and

/or proven analysis to support reducing the burden of HIV/AIDS, within the past 12-15 years?”

A- please see responses to previous two questions.

22. Are Offerors allowed to charge indirect costs (G&A, subcontract handling, etc.) on non-labor costs if it’s in accordance with the Offeror's approved NICRA?

A- The fully loaded labor rate proposed by a contractor will include NICRA, please see the requirement in Section L.5, Volume III, Labor on page 54 of the RFQ. Please provide current NICRA agreement in your business proposal as an attachment.

End of modification 0001.

Millennium Challenge Corporation, Contracts and Grants Management Division, 1099 Fourteenth St NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC, 20005-3550, US