questions and responses for rfa-oaa-15-000021.docx

Human Resource for Health (HRH) Program

RFA-OAA-15-000021

Amendment No.: 1

June 10, 2015

Request for Application No.: RFA-OAA-15-000021

Amendment No.: 1

The purpose of this amendment is to amend the solicitation and provide answers to questions received.

The subject RFA is hereby amended as follows:

Page 41. “Required Certification, Assurances, and Solicitation Provisions”

Insert The certification requirement must be completed by only the prime except for any certifications/representations that specifically flow-down to subawardees. The letters of commitments and letters of Support should be included as part of the Cost/Business Application.

Responses to Questions Received:

1. Our teams are very much interested by this opportunity and would thus like to know whether or not a cross-border action between these two countries under the “Maternal and child health” specific target would be eligible for funding.

· There are no restrictions on the types of partnerships or relationships if they can adequately respond to all the requirements of the RFA.

2. Are (RFA-OAA-15-000021; APS-OAA-15-000005; and APS-OAA-15-000004) all of above projects are interrelated and would be awarded within a country?

· Each of these applications and program statements are separate and stand alone; therefore awards for each will be made independently, without consideration of the others.

3. May one applicant be awarded all three project?

· Each of these applications are separate and stand alone; therefore awards for each will be made independently, without consideration of the others.

4. Should the applicant be a country/regional level organization or it may be a local organization working in one province or part of a country?

· The applicant can be any entity that feels it is able to adequately respond to all the requirements of the RFA.

5. May a network of the organizations apply?

· Yes

6. Is the HRH project is to establish a regional/country level coordinating point for implementation of the APS Integrating Community Health and its addendum CHW project?

· The HRH2030 application is independent of any other application and there are no specific expectations beyond the project's intention to seek out collaborative opportunities with similar or related USAID projects.

7. We are an international institution in scientific research materials based in Kinshasa, we would send our application in the meantime we have our DUNS, the question is whether we will use this same announcement.

· Yes. Please use the assigned DUNS number to your organization with the submission.

8. Page 8, Section I – Funding Opportunity Description, A1. Vision states that the project will traditional cadres of health care workers, such as doctors, nurses, pharmacists, move beyond midwives and community health workers (CHWs), to include new clinical cadres, non-clinical cadres such as medical shop keepers and traditional healers, health managers, the supply chain workforce, the social welfare workforce, and others throughout the public and private sectors.” • Question: Could USAID please provide its definition of the private sector as it pertains to HRH2030? • Question: Does USAID consider private provider networks, informal private partnership.

· The project defines the private sector to include the non-profit or non-governmental, the for-profit or commercial, and the informal sub-sectors in terms of health care information, products and service provision. Private provider networks are part of the private sector if they fit within this definition.

9. Page 20, Section I – Funding Opportunity Description, D2. Project Objectives and Illustrative Areas of Work, Objective 3: Strengthen HRH/HSS Leadership governance capacity. Within this objective, the terms HRH and HSS are used together. • Question: Could USAID please clarify its expectation regarding the focus of the leadership and governance strengthening efforts?

· USAID's expectation is that leadership and governance efforts will be focused primarily on HRH, but recognizes that it is often a fine distinction between HRH and health systems (HS) in these areas. Thus we will allow some latitude, to be determined by country context and funding source.

10. Page 22, Section I – Funding Opportunity Description, E. Monitoring and Evaluation and Learning Approach, stipulates that, “a minimum of 15% of all core and field support budgets will be dedicated to implementing research and evaluation activities that contribute to the evidence base on HRH by demonstrating the impact of project interventions and advance the discussion on causal pathways from HRH interventions to improved health outcomes.” • Question: Will the 15% allocation of field support budgets for research and evaluation activities be required for all levels of field support buy-ins? • Question: Are there mechanisms in place to inform missions that the minimum of 15% of field support budgets to be dedicated to implementing research and evaluation activities is a requirement?

· Yes, it will be required for all funding at all levels. Mechanisms for informing missions will be established post-award.

11. Page 27, Section II- Federal Award Information, A. Estimated Total Amount states that “USAID intends to make an award up to $145 million, including both Washington “core” funding and Mission/field support buy-in funding. An estimated 5% of the Award will be funded through core funds, with 95% of funding for the Award provided through field support.” • Question: May Applicants make the assumption that field support will commence within the first month of the project? • Question: Are there parameters around how much core funding the Applicant should budget per year?

· Applicants should not make any assumptions about actual core or field support funding in the first month or over the life of the project. For purposes of this solicitation, applicants should assume that core and field support funding are evenly spread across the 5 year life-span of the project.

12. Page 32, Section IV- Application and Submission Information, C3. Technical Application Format states that the Applicant is limited to 40 pages for the Technical Application. • Question: Is the Cover Page, Executive Summary, Monitoring and Evaluation, Management and Institutional Capacity, Key Personnel and Staffing sections, and Annexes A-D not included within the 40 page limit for the Technical Application Format?

· Please reference Section IV – Application and Submission Information for the page limit instructions. Note that annexes are not included into the page limits.

13. Page 35, Section IV- Application and Submission Information C3. Technical Application Format, Key Personnel and Staffing states that “a minimum of 30% of the total professional LOE for non-key personnel should be reserved for professionals from developing countries.” • Question: Will USAID allow individuals who are from developing countries but no longer reside in their country of origin or hold dual citizenship to be counted as part of the 30% requirement?

· No. The 30% of total professional LOEs for non-key personnel applies to FSN and TCNs working/ residing in the developing countries where the program will be implemented.

14. Page 35, Section IV- Application and Submission Information C3. Technical Application Format, lists four Annexes that must be included within the Applicant’s Technical Application. • Question: Will USAID allow Applicants to include Letters of Commitment from proposed partners and Letters of Support from stakeholders as an Annex to the Technical Application?

· Letters of Commitments and Letters of Support should be included as part of the Cost/Business Application under "Certification, Assurances, and Other Statements of the Recipient."

15. Regarding RFA-OAA-15-000021, the total program funding mentioned is $45,000,000. I wish to know if there is an award ceiling on how much an organization can apply for from within the total program funding.

· The total program funding is $145 M. The RFA is intended to result in one Cooperative Agreement award for the indicated total program funding.

16. To allow for higher quality proposals in response to this RFA, we respectfully ask USAID to consider extending the closing date. An extension will better enable all interested parties to competitively respond to this solicitation for a flagship global health project and to provide USAID with improved best value responses to achieve project objectives.

· The RFA closing date remains June 22, 2015 at 5:00 PM (EST), this is considered ample time to respond.

17. Given the potential technical and timing challenges often encountered during submission via Grants.gov (specifically system failures due to overwhelming traffic on the site, which can prohibit applicants for submission), would USAID consider submission via e-mail or an alternative method of delivery?

· Applicant’s submission should be uploaded via Grants.gov. It is recommended to properly plan to avoid technical/ timing challenges. Please contact the Agreement Specialist prior to submission for technical challenges. As an exception, email submission is acceptable and must be sent to both points-of-contacts; however, Grants.gov submission is the preferred method.

18. Would USAID please kindly provide us with the anticipated date in which the application package for this solicitation will be posted to Grants.gov?

· The entire announcement has been available under "Related Documents" tab submission must be uploaded under the “Application Package” tab of grants.gov.

19. The project goal statement (Page 9) references health outcomes, including universal health coverage. Could USAID please define health outcomes and/or specifically reference which health outcomes are prioritized given anticipated funding sources?

· Information on health outcomes and priorities is provided in the RFA and attached documents and applicants should reference these sources. For example, in the RFA (p. 12-13), the EPCMD goal is to reduce child mortality to less than 20 per 1,000 live births; and the goal of FP2020 is to enable 120 million more women to use modern contraception by 2020.

20. We respectfully ask USAID to make publicly available all CapacityPlus progress reports and project evaluations. Access to these documents will provide all potential applicants with equal information on current work, accomplishments and lessons learned, and enable all applicants to more effectively propose approaches and activities that “build on the prior work and accomplishments of USAID and Global Health programs” (page 15).

· All publically available information has already been released.

21. Page 14 of the RFA references that “USAID/GH has led a process for developing a USG strategy for HRH.” Can USAID make this document available for potential applicants and/or clarify to which strategy this statement refers (e.g., PEPFAR HRH strategy)?

22. On page 41, the RFA (Section D.7) states that “Applicants must complete the Certifications, Assurances, and Representations and include a PDF with the full application submission.” Can USAID please clarify whether the applicant is the only party required to submit these respective documents and that the documents referenced above are not required for subawardees?

· The certification requirement must be completed by only the prime except for any certifications/representations that specifically flow-down to subawardees. In addition, please note that the RFA is being amended so that all Certifications, Assurances and Representations will only be required by the apparently successful applicant prior to award. The only Representation that should be included in the application is any Letters of Commitment.

23. On page 22, L. 32, it is stated: USAID states: “To adequately support and encourage research and evaluation by HRH2030, a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all core and field support budgets will be dedicated to implementing research and evaluation activities.” Can USAID confirm that the LOE and funding for internal project monitoring and evaluation (e.g., PMP, semi-annual and annual reports) is considered part of that 15%?

· The 15% of all core and field support budgets is to be used for implementing research and evaluation activities that contribute to the evidence base on HRH as stated in the RFA. It does NOT include standard project monitoring (e.g., PMP, semi-annual and annual reports, etc. or the LOE of staff for these efforts).

24. Considering the weight of the Management and Institutional Capacity Section (page 43), would USAID considering extending the section to a maximum of 5 pages in length?

· The maximum page length is as detailed with the announcement. Please reference Section IV - Application and Submission Information under part C of "Content and Format of Application Submission."

25. On page 22, L. 23, it is stated that specific evaluation and research might include: “External performance evaluation (s) conducted at midterm and/or end of project.” With reference to external evaluations, USAID typically funds these through alternative mechanisms and not using project funds. Is it the intent of USAID that applicants include in their evaluation and research budgets adequate funding for midterm and end of project performance evaluations given that those are funded through alternative mechanisms to avoid potential conflict of interest?

· No. The project will not bear the cost of midterm and end-of-project evaluations out of its budget, but they will be considered part of the project's larger evaluation plan as described in USAID's Evaluation Policy.

26. The RFA (page 27, L.1) specifies that, “USAID intends to make an award of up to $145 million, including both Washington “core” funding and Mission/field support buy-in funding. An estimated 5% of the Award will be funded through core funds, with 95% of funding for the Award provided through field support.” Can USAID provide additional assumptions about the relative allocation of funding anticipated for the 5% core ($7.25 million over 5 years) between earmarks?

· As funding will be determined over the course of the project's life span, and is dependent upon a number of factors, it is not possible to provide any further information on amounts and sources. It is USAID's intent to fully fund the HRH 2030 project upon award.

27. Can USAID confirm that for-profit organizations bidding on the HRH2030 cooperative agreement shall follow the applicable cost principle for for-profit organizations as outlined in FAR 31.2?

· Please refer to Section III and Section IV for clarification about for profit organizations.

28. The Past Performance Form (Appendix B, Part I.4) requests the, “name and title of the individual completing the questionnaire.” Can USAID please confirm that this refers to the contact information for the Contract Officer or Agreement Officer? If not, could USAID clarify whether contact information for the Contract Officer or Agreement Officer should be included (and if yes, where)?

· This can be either the Contracting/Agreement Officer or the Contracting/Agreement Officer's Representative.

29. Could USAID provide further details regarding the countries where CapacityPlus has operated in order to provide us with a reasonable perspective of the current operating environment?

· It is recommended to reference the RFA for a complete list of priority and focus countries, which includes the current CapacityPlus countries.

30. In regards to Objective 4, (page 21), can USAID please specify what global accountability mechanisms they are referring to in regards to HRH?

· The attached document from the Global Health Workforce Alliance should be referenced for additional information on global accountability mechanism. This information is also publicly available on the internet.

31. Could USAID please clarify, per the 937 Geographic Code (page 28), that all countries listed on pages 16 and 28 can be classified as cooperating countries.

· The countries listed in the RFA are intended to focus on USAID's priority counties for HRH2030's funding opportunity.

32. Would USAID consider waiving the requirement for Key Personnel to hold a Master’s Degree or higher (pages 24-26), in exchange for additional years of relevant experience?

· No.

33. A partner in our consortium has requested to submit sealed rates as part of their budget detail. Could USAID please confirm that this is acceptable to USAID and that the partner can submit the sealed rates directly to the designated USAID points of contact via email instead of Grants.gov?

· All applicants are required to use the most recent versions of SF-424 series.

34. Could USAID please confirm that all activities under this cooperative agreement will be funded through a letter of credit?

· If an organization is eligible to receive a letter of credit or has previously established one and is in good standing, USAID would be amenable to providing a letter of credit for this award.

35. Could you please verify the value of the proposed award? The Mission forecast had previously valued this solicitation at $45 million, rather than the $145 million stated in the solicitation document?

· The value of the proposed award is up to $145 M as stated on the announcement.

36. Are Offerors required to be registered to work in, or have presence in, each of the 24 priority MCH countries?

· No. Not in the application phase. After award, registration will be completed or a presence established on an as needed basis.

37. May the 15% of core and field support budgets dedicated to research and evaluation activities (p. 22) be partially or fully accounted for via cost share?

· No. While cost share can contribute to research and evaluation activities, it does not count towards the required 15%.

38. On page 29 the RFA states that “applicants must propose a minimum cost share of 15% of the projected USAID funded amount. Such funds should not count existing donations of commitments.” Does this sentence refer to existing donations or commitments made directly to USAID by pharmaceuticals and other donors? If so, could USAID please provide a list of existing secured cost share?

· No. It refers to existing commitments to the applicant, not USAID.

39. For the field support budget, can USAID provide assumptions for the number of countries and timing of roll-out?

· Applicants should use their experience to present what they feel is a realistic scenario.

40. Can the Budget Narrative section be included in the Cost Application as a PDF file that is separate from the Budget Excel file?

· It is recommended for all applicants to submit budget narratives in word and actual budgets in one imbedded excel workbook file for the consortium with a summary sheets for every organization, and high level roll-up summary for the total program cost (by cost element).

41. We kindly request that USAID release the mid-term report and all available annual reports for the CapacityPlus Project as they are not currently available as a resource on the Development Experience Clearinghouse website or on the CapacityPlus website.

· All publically available information has already been released.

42. The RFA indicates that Applications should be submitted via Grants.gov. However, the Application Package is not currently available on the website for download. Can USAID either release the application package or accept submissions via email. If email submission is acceptable, please advise where submissions should be sent.

· The referenced application package is located within the RFA announcement. Please see the 'Related Documents' tab on Grants.gov. It is highly recommended that all applicants utilize the most recent SF-424 series for uploading ones submissions onto Grants.gov.

[End of Amendment No.: 01] image1.jpeg