440-16-000002-SHIFT.AMEND_2.pdf

SOL440-16-000002 (SHIFT) -: Modification 2

A. Hotel Logistics:

The venue for the pre-proposal conference has been finalized for November 30, 2015 from 13:00 to 15:00 hours Hanoi time at the:

MELIÁ HANOI Hotel 44B Ly Thuong Kiet Street Meeting venue: Ballroom section 3, floor 1

The pre-proposal conference is free and an opportunity for interested parties. It is not a requirement to be eligible to bid on this solicitation. Interested parties are encouraged to continue to register for the conference at the following link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1NWkv9P9hXHq2e4cGynj3Sp3w8wxlbtnWhCZUyKJR9AM/viewform

B. Answers to Questions Related to RFP No. SOL-440-16-000002:

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS/PRESENTATION

Question 1: Section F.5 states: “The contractor shall devote 17,002 work-days level of effort of technical assistance by direct employees, consultants, or subcontractor labor for the period specified in the clause, Period of Performance, above.” The labor categories in Section F.5 appear to be for technical assistance only, with no category for home office or project backstopping LOE. How should offerors account for home-office LOE required to support the technical assistance for

CLIN 2?

USAID Answer 1: As stated in Section F.5, support and administrative personnel are not included in the level of effort (LOE) table and are not covered by the F.5 clause. Also, as stated in revised Section L.8, Offerors should propose the appropriate administrative/support personnel costs to directly administer the technical assistance required in CLIN 2 as CLIN 2 costs. Please see the revised Section L.8 for cost proposal instructions and assumptions.

Question 2: Could USAID kindly confirm that Section L.8(b)(1)(a) refers to the LOE for CLIN 2 as specified in F.5 instead of F.6?

USAID Answer 2: Thank you. Yes, Section L.8(b)(1)(a) refers to the LOE for CLIN 2 as specified in F.5. Please note that Section L.8 has been revised.

Question 3: Page 104: Can you please confirm that the level of effort for CLIN 2 is as specified in F.5 (not section F.6 as stated in the RFP).

USAID Answer 3: Yes, please see response to Question #2..

Question 4: On p. 104, the RFP states that Long Term Technical Assistance for this CLIN 2 does not include nonprofessional support staff (e.g., office managers, administrative assistants, or drivers). Does

USAID require that the Offeror presents a separate tab showing the cumulative LOE for the Offeror and all Sub-contractors (including nonprofessional labor) under CLIN2 or is presentation of only professional long-term labor sufficient?

USAID Answer 4: Please see the answer to Question #1 and please see revised Section L.8. Offerors should propose all the appropriate and necessary costs to meet the objectives of each CLIN. All proposed costs for CLIN 1 should be separate from all proposed costs for CLIN 2. In accordance with Section F.5, there is no distinction of long-term or short term technical assistance. Rather, CLIN 2 calls for the LOE required for expatriate technical assistance and local/CCN technical assistance.

Also, as stated in revised Section L.8, Offerors should propose the appropriate administrative/support personnel costs to directly administer the technical assistance required in CLIN 2 as CLIN 2 costs. Please see Section L.8 for cost proposal instructions. Please also refer to the table and clause in Section F.5.

Question 5: Section F.5 (page 30-31), while acknowledging the life of project limits for level of effort for expatriate (1,297 workdays) and local/CCN (15,705 workdays) technical experts, totaling 17,002 workdays, could the offeror reconfigure the workdays, as currently listed, for years 1 to 5?

USAID Answer 5: Section F.5 has been provided by USAID as the required level of effort necessary per year to reach the objectives of the SHIFT project.

Question 6: Section L.8(b)(12)(f) states: “If the proposed Chief of Party or Technical Director is a TCN or CCN, Offerors must confirm and ensure that associated rates are within the local compensation plan of the place of performance.” This seems to conflict with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in Section I.1, which states, “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors should comply with AIDAR 752.7007 and follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for establishing individual salaries?

USAID Answer 6: The two statements do not conflict. In accordance with AIDAR 752.7007, an Offeror’s compensation must be in accordance with their internal policies and procedures to be proposed.

However, Offerors should also be mindful that compensation must also comply with the requirements of AIDAR 722.170, Employment of third country nationals (TCN's) and cooperating country nationals (CCN's). Offerors are reminded to propose the level and composition of staff it believes will result in the successful completion of the tasks in Section C.

Question 7: Could USAID please confirm that the technical proposal is limited to 35 pages as stated in section L.7.1(b) and not 25 pages as stated in section L.8(h)?

USAID Answer 7: Thank you. Yes, the technical proposal is limited to 35 pages and section L.8 has been revised accordingly.

Question 8: Could USAID please confirm that the technical proposal can be written in other versions of Microsoft Word as long as they are compatible with Word 2010 as referenced in Section L.6(e)?

USAID Answer 8: Yes, the technical proposal can be written in other versions of Microsoft Word as long as they are compatible with Word 2010. This section of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

Question 9: Could USAID please confirm that the narrative for the cost proposal can be written in other versions of Microsoft Word as long as they are compatible with Word 2010 as referenced in Section L.6(f)?

USAID Answer 9: Yes, the narrative for the cost proposal can be written in another version of Microsoft Word as long as they are compatible with Word 2010. This section of the RFP has been updated

Question 10: On page 100, the RFP states that offerors should “List up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal.”

a. Can USAID confirm that this is five contracts in total among the Offeror and major sub-contractors (those whose budget exceeds 25%)?

b. Can you please confirm that awards made under grant or cooperative agreement mechanisms can be listed among these five, and that the past performance references are not restricted to contracts only?

USAID Answer 10: USAID confirms that Offerors should list up to five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for itself and up to five (5) for each major sub-contractor as stated at the beginning of Section L.7.2.4. The past performance information requested in Section L is requested for contracts, but if Offerors believe they have past performance information from a grant and/or cooperative agreement that meets the criteria for relevancy, they are allowed to submit information on that mechanism as one of the list of five (5) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal. This section of the RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 11: On p. 100, the Offeror is requested to complete the first page of the Past Performance Report included in Attachment J3. Can you please confirm that the Offeror is required to use the first page of Attachment J2 (not J3)?

USAID Answer 11: Yes, thank you. USAID confirms it is Attachment J.2 and the RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 12: P. 101, for past performance, would USAID accept a list of contracts for which SF294 reports have been submitted to eSRS in the past 5 years instead of requiring the Offeror to submit actual copies of the SF 294 reports?

USAID Answer 12: Yes, USAID will accept a list of contracts for which SF 294 reports have been submitted to eSRS in the past 5 years in lieu of Offerors submitting actual copies of reports. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 13: Our hardcopy subcontracting reports, SF-294s, for recent years total more than 800 pages and take up more than 40 MB. In addition to the hardcopy SF-294s for projects not registered in the eSRS, we have also submitted individual subcontracting reports through the eSRS for registered projects. Instead of submitting the electronic files totaling 40 MB with 800 pages of SF-294s, may we submit only 10 relevant SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

USAID Answer 13: Please see response to Question #12. USAID will accept a list of contracts for which SF 294 reports have been submitted to eSRS in the past 5 years in lieu of Offerors submitting actual copies of reports. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 14: Section L.7.2.4 (page 101), SF 294, please confirm if this is to be included as an annex.

USAID Answer 14: Yes, any submitted SF 294 or list of contracts for which SF 294 reports have been submitted to eSRS, is to be included as an annex to the technical proposal. Please also see response to Question #12. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 15: Section L.8.(b)(1)(a)(9) states: “USAID highly encourages firm fixed price sub-contracts wherever possible, or other types as appropriate, in order to ensure maximum incentive for control of costs and performance based on deliverables. Time and Material subcontracts will not be allowed.” Could USAID please provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) or time and materials (T&M) type subcontracts with organizations when the following conditions are met?

a. An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract;

b. An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31;

c. The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract is administered properly; and,

d. An organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID.

USAID Answer 15: Section L.8 has been revised. USAID highly encourages firm fixed price sub-contracts in order to ensure maximum incentive for control of costs and performance based on deliverables.

Question 16: Would USAID please allow an executive summary or cover letter as part of the technical proposal and not included in the page limitation? Can USAID confirm that Offerors are allowed to include an executive summary in their proposal?

USAID Answer 16: Sections L.7.1 (a) and (b) discuss what will and will not be counted as part of the 35 page limitation on the technical proposal. A cover page/letter is not included in the page limitation and is allowed. Offerors can include an executive summary but it will be counted as part of the 35 page limitation.

Question 17: Would USAID please confirm that the list of acronyms is not included in the page limitation of the technical proposal? Can you please confirm that if the Offeror includes an acronym list for ease of USAID review, the acronym list does not count towards the 35-page limit?

USAID Answer 17: Yes, a list of acronyms would not be included in the page limitation. Section L.7 of the RFP has been updated accordingly.

Question 18: Section L.7.1 (page 97), CVs of Key Personnel (3-page limit per CV), please confirm if this is to be included or excluded from the 35-page limit of the Technical Proposal?

USAID Answer 18: Please see Section L.7.1 (a) of the RFP. CVs of key personnel (up to 3 pages in length) are included in the 35 page limit of the technical proposal.

Question 19: Referencing Section L.7.2.3, would USAID please allow the CVs of key personnel to be included in an annex and not counted against the page limit?

USAID Answer 19: Please see response to Question #18.

Question 20: Can USAID confirm if CVs of key personnel should be included in the body of the technical proposal? Would USAID allow key personnel CVs to be included as an Annex, provided that the Offeror describes key personnel qualifications in sufficient detail in the body of the proposal?

USAID Answer 20: Please see response to Question #18.

Question 21: Referencing Section L.7.2.3, would USAID please confirm that CVs and letters of availability for long-term professional personnel should be included in an annex and not counted against the page limit?

USAID Answer 21: The RFP calls for the CVs of two key personnel to be included in the 35 page limit of the technical proposal. The CVs of other long term professional personnel, if known at the time of proposal, can be included as an annex and will not count toward the 35 page limitation. Letters of availability of long term professional personnel are not requested. The RFP has been revised

Question 22: In Section L.7.2.3 (page 99), Key Personnel, “the Offeror must provide brief summaries of the job descriptions and qualifications of other full-time technical professional staff, and short-term advisors,” is this to be included as an annex and does it have any page limitation for each job description?

USAID Answer 22: Please see response to Question #18 and 21. The RFP only calls for the CVs of two key personnel to be included in the 35 page limitation of the technical proposal. Brief summaries of job descriptions and qualifications should only be provided for full-time technical professional staff, including key personnel, and will be included in the 35 page limitation. CVs of long term professional personnel, if known at the time of proposal, can be included as an annex. Letters of availability/commitment are only required for key personnel and can be included as an annex.

The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 23: Can you please confirm that CVs of non-key personnel can be included as an annex, provided that their qualifications are summarized in the body of the technical proposal?

USAID Answer 23: Yes, confirmed. Please see response to Question #22.

Question 24: Referencing Section L.7.2.3, would USAID please allow the brief summaries of the job descriptions and qualifications of other full-time technical professional staff and short-term advisors to be included in an annex and not counted against the page limit?

USAID Answer 24: Please see response to Question #22.

Question 25: On page 104, the RFP states that biodatas should be submitted for “all proposed candidates”. Can USAID clarify if these mean the two proposed key personnel, or all named staff?

USAID Answer 25: As stated in Section L.8, biographical data sheets must be provided for all named, proposed personnel. This includes key personnel and any known/named full time professional staff.

Question 26: Section L.8 (page 104), Biographical Data Sheets, please confirm if this is required for all proposed candidates or only proposed key personnel.

USAID Answer 26: Please see response to Question #25.

Question 27: Would USAID please allow the staffing organogram/chart to be included in an annex and not counted against the page limit?

USAID Answer 27: The staffing organogram/chart should be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal. The

RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 28: Would USAID please clarify whether offerors can participate by telephone in the pre-proposal conference for this solicitation on November 30, 2015? If so, would USAID allow offerors to participate by telephone in addition to three attendees?

USAID Answer 28: Offerors will not be able to participate by telephone in the pre-proposal conference due to our facilities. Please note, the pre-proposal conference is not a requirement and more than three attendees from each organization may attend as necessary. All information resulting from the conference will be made public through a formal amendment to the RFP, including slides, attendees, and any resulting question and answers. Additionally, please note that a second question and answer period has been opened and questions will be allowed until December 4, 2015 at 16:00hrs Hanoi local time.

Question 29: Can you please confirm if the cover page for the technical and cost proposals is to be signed by an authorized representative? If so, is it permissible for the Offeror to submit the technical and cost proposal in PDF, as they will contain signed pages (cover page, letters of commitment, certifications, etc.)?

USAID Answer 29: USAID confirms that the cover page for the technical and cost proposals should be signed by an authorized representative. Pages of documents requiring a signature are allowed to be submitted in PDF format,as necessary. All other pages must comply with the instructions for delivery in Section L. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 30: Can you please confirm whether letters of commitment are required for non-key personnel (they are not listed on p. 97 as items not included in the page limitation, but they are referenced on p.

99)?

USAID Answer 30: Please see response to Question #22. Letters of commitment are not required for non-key personnel positions. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 31: Section L.8 (page 104), Labor – Local staff salary ranges, are these ranges applied to Year 1 only? Or will it be applied for Year 1-5 of the project?

USAID Answer 31: USAID has provided this current information in Section L.8 to assist Offerors in the preparation of their cost proposal.

SCOPE OF WORK:

Question 32: Section C.2 defines priority provinces as the following: “Vietnam provinces identified with high HIV burden and a strong potential to reach epidemic control. PEPFAR support to these provinces currently includes active case-finding and expanded HIV/AIDS services before transition. In 2015, five provinces are identified as priority provinces (Dien Bien, Son La, Nghe An, Thanh Hoa, and Ho Chi Minh City).” However, Section C.4 states: “In year one, the focus will be to optimize the CoPC cascade in Dien Bien and Nghe An provinces and active case finding in HCMC to support the new PEPFAR model that prioritizes achieving epidemic control.” Would USAID kindly clarify what offerors are expected to focus on in Son La and Thanh Hoa provinces?

USAID Answer 32: The remaining two priority provinces, Son La and Thanh Hoa, will be supported by another U.S.

Government agency.

Question 32: Section C.4 Task 1.1 states: “Scale-up services along the entire CoPC in PEPFAR/Vietnam priority provinces to achieve ‘90-90-90’ HIV case-funding, care, and treatment targets.”

However, the contractual results for Task 1.1 table on page 20 includes both priority and maintenance provinces. Would USAID kindly clarify whether Task 1.1 includes only priority provinces or both priority and maintenance provinces?

USAID Answer 32: The majority of contractual targets listed in the Task 1.1 table will be attained in the USAID priority provinces. However, until maintenance provinces currently supported through the

USAID SMART TA Project are transitioned, USAID will continue to support passive (walk-in) HIV testing and treatment services. Please note however that PEPFAR support for antiretroviral (ART) drugs will be capped April 1, 2016.

Question 33: What is the rationale in the drop-off in the targets for indicators 1, 3 and 4 in the table on page 20, “Contractual Results for task 1.1.”?

USAID Answer 33: OGAC policy to attain 90-90-90 test, treat and retain targets in Vietnam priority provinces is expected to extend through October 2018. USAID considers that HIV testing and treatment activities will be prioritized during the first year of the contract.

Question 34: Section C.4 Task 1.2 states: “Maintain DSD and then fully transition ownership of remaining sites in maintenance provinces supported through the USAID SMART TA Project.” However, the contractual results for Task 1.2 on page 21 includes both priority provinces and sites from the SMART TA Project. Would USAID kindly clarify whether Task 1.2 includes only maintenance provinces or both priority and maintenance provinces?

USAID Answer 34: The targets for task 1.2 on page 21 do include both maintenance provinces and priority provinces.

This is because after the current OGAC policy (90-90-90 test, treat and retain) ends in priority provinces in October 2018, sites in those priority provinces will also be transitioned.

Question 35: Can USAID confirm the number of DSD sites to be supported in the PEPFAR priority provinces of Dien Bien and Nghe An?

USAID Answer 35: The number of DSD sites to be supported in Dien Bien are 18 (2 sites for reach, 9 sites for testing, and 7 sites for treatment). The number of DSD sites to be supported in Nghe An are 35 (7 sites for reach, 14 sites for testing, and 14 sites for treatment). Please note that in some districts, services are delivered through more than one service delivery point. The number of sites may be changed according to programmatic or other requirements.

Question 36: Can USAID confirm the number of DSD sites to be transitioned in the eight PEPFAR maintenance provinces?

USAID Answer 36: In the eight maintenance provinces that have participated in the SMART TA Project (An Giang, Bac Giang, Can Tho, Hai Phong, Hanoi, Lao Cai, Quang Ninh, and Thai Binh), 36 DSD sites will be transitioned.

Question 37: Does USAID expect new DSD sites to be established in Dien Bien and Nghe An in order to scale-up services and meet the 90-90-90 targets?

USAID Answer 37: Presently, USAID does not expect more DSD sites to be established in Dien Bien and Nghe An.

However, due to unforeseen circumstances, it is possible that more DSD sites could be added.

Question 38: As DSD sites are transitioned off to the GVN and receive primarily technical assistance, will the project still report numbers tested, treated, retained at these sites to count toward the targets?

USAID Answer 38: If a DSD site continues to receive PEPFAR supported TA-SDI after it has been transitioned to the

GVN it will continue to be monitored after the transition and will be responsible for reporting results. For more information please consult the PEPFAR Monitoring and Reporting Indictor Reference guide at http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/240108.pdf.

Question 39: Section C.5.4 states: “The Contractor, in consultation with the USAID COR, shall develop a

Request Scope of Work (R-SOW) format to be used by district, provincial or national level health authorities for describing problem statements and requesting TA services.” However, Step 1 of Typical Assignment Responsibilities under C.5.4 states: “For inclusiveness purposes, R-SOWs can be completed and submitted to the USAID COR on behalf of a wide range of persons, facilities, or organizations; including public or private HIV stakeholders at the district, provincial or national level.” Does USAID anticipate that the R-SOW process will be used by only health authorities, or by a wider range of stakeholders?

USAID Answer 39: USAID will accept HIV-related TA requests from priority provinces and from provinces that are currently or have traditionally been supported by PEPFAR (see Section C.3). R-SOWs will be accepted from facilities or organizations; including public or private HIV stakeholders at the district, provincial or national level. Section C.5.2 of the RFP has been revised.

Question 40: Section C.4 states on page 19: “In addition to the indicators defined in the contractual results for

Tasks 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 below, the Contractor shall adhere to and be expected to report on all required PEPFAR Vietnam indicators in compliance with Global PEPFAR monitoring and reporting (MER) requirements.” However, Section C.4 does not include contractual results for Task 2.1. Would USAID please clarify whether the contractor shall adhere to and be expected to report on indicators defined in the contractual results for only Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 or would USAID please provide contractual results for Task 2.1?

USAID Answer 40: As stated in the RFP, the contractor would be expected to report on all required PEPFAR

Vietnam indicators in compliance with Global PEPFAR monitoring and reporting (MER) requirements, and on indicators defined in the contractual results for Tasks 1.1 and 1.2.

Question 41: Section C.4 Subtask 2.1 states on page 21: “The TA mechanism will follow the general guidelines described in Section C.5 and Appendix A. However, the RFP does not include Appendix A. Would USAID please clarify whether the TA mechanism will follow the general guidelines described only in Section C.5 or would USAID please provide Appendix A?

USAID Answer 41: USAID confirms that the technical assistance mechanism will follow the general guidelines described in Section C.5. The RFP has been revised accordingly. Please note that Attachment J.5 gives an illustrative list of the potential expertise needed under this contract.

Question 42: Section F.8 (page 37), the RFP describes desired qualifications for the Key Personnel/Chief of

Party (COP) position. We note the COP candidate “should have a minimum of 10 years of demonstrated experience working in HIV/AIDS prevention, care or treatment programs - 5 of those years shall be experience working in country on a PEPFAR funded program.” Concerning the latter requirement, could the five years comprise experience supporting a PEPFAR funded program in a senior management capacity based outside of the country, for example, in a headquarters or regional-based management position that might have involved frequent travel to the PEPFAR country instead of being based in country?

USAID Answer 42: USAID confirms that the required five years of experience working on a PEPFAR funded program for both key personnel positions may be located outside the country as long as those years of experience are directly related to the management of a PEPFAR funded program. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

BRANDING AND MARKING:

Question 43: Can USAID clarify if the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan should be an annex in the technical proposal or in the cost proposal? (It’s referred to in both sections).

USAID Answer 43: The Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan should be included as an annex to the cost proposal. The RFP has been revised accordingly.

Question 44: Section L.8 (page 108), Branding and Implementation Plan and Marketing, please confirm that it should be included in the Technical Proposal as an annex.

USAID Answer 44: Please see response to Question #43.

C. Specific changes to the RFP No. SOL-440-16-000002:

Please see specific changes highlighted in red in the revised RFP attached.

[End of Modification 2]