SOL-497-16-000010_-_Amendment_No.01.pdf

Amendment No.01 RFP No.SOL-497-16-000010 Flagship Maternal and Newborn Health (MNH) Activity

PART 1 – ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

STANDARD FORM (SF) 33 – SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

1. SF 33, Box 9 states that the proposal due date is January 9, 2017. Please confirm that the correct due date for proposals is February 24, 2017, and that offerors should insert February 24, 2017, in Box 9 of SF 33.

Similar Questions:

● Re SF 33 – Please confirm that proposals are due on February 24, 2017 – as stated in the cover letter – and not on January 9, 2017, as indicated in section 9 of the SF 33.

● No. 9 of SF33 lists January 9, 2017 as the closing date. Will USAID be providing Applicants a revised SF33 with a closing date of February 24, 2017 for submission?

USAID Response: Yes – the correct due date for proposals is February 24, 2017. The due date in SF 33, Box 9, has been revised from January 9, 2017 to February 24, 2017.

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND COST/PRICES

2. The period of performance of this CPFF is 3 base years plus 2 option years. Does USAID have an estimated funding split in mind for the base and option periods of the contract?

USAID Response: No – The funding split among the three base years plus two options is left to the Offeror to propose in their estimated budget.

3. Section B.4 (p. 10) of the RFP states that the Contractor is “not authorized to shift funding between Contract Line Items without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.” Could USAID please confirm that written approval refers to an email (or equivalent) authorization, rather than a full contract amendment?

USAID Response: The form of written approval under the subject provision will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer and will not be specified at this time. However any written approval under the subject provision will result in a subsequent contract modification to reflect the appropriate changes.

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

4. Section C.3.2 (p. 24) the RFP identifies Evidence Utilization as Technical Area 6 and lists illustrative objectives, including improving maternal perinatal audit systems and strengthening the civil registration and vital statistics. At the same time, the RFP calls on the Contractor to establish a robust M&E plan and, under the Every Mother and Newborn Counts activity, the Contractor will identify all maternal and newborn deaths in a district in each of the 10 provinces, conduct verbal autopsies on a selection, and provide recommendations on strengthening the CRVS and maternal perinatal audits.

Can USAID clarify whether the Contractor should directly provide technical assistance to strengthen MNH information and reporting systems, fill MNH data gaps, and promote information use (e.g., as part of Component 1-Measurement/Communication or as part of Component 2-Technical Assistance)? Or is it envisioned all of these tasks will be included in the “calls for innovation” under Technical Area 6?

USAID Response: There are 6 technical focus areas under which the Flagship MNH activity must achieve results through co-creation platform. Along with this, under Component 1, the activity must have a robust M&E system to measure results, communicate and further inform the co-creation platform across each of the 6 technical focus areas as well as the overall approach. Additionally, the MNH activity must have a continuous evidence update process. This could include a variety of processes, but must include the Every Mother and Newborn Counts (EMNC).The EMNC must be conducted as a core activity under Component 1 and linked to system improvements, but it could also be included under Technical Focus Area 6, if identified as a local priority. The overall technical approach is expected to lead to improvements across all 6 technical focus areas and improve MNH information gaps.

5. Can USAID please provide any existing or preliminary information regarding the ongoing MNH Evidence Summit mentioned in Section C.4 (p.25)?

USAID Response: Updated Annex V – SOW for Indonesia MNH Evidence Summit will be provided in the revised RFP. For updates on the Indonesia MNH Evidence Summit updates, please check on the Maternal Child Survival Program (MCSP) website http://www.mcsprogram.org/where-we-work/indonesia/

For reference on the Banten II study, please check the link below:

http://www.tractionproject.org/sites/default/files/rfafiles/Access%20updated%20RFA%20her e.pdf

6. Are USAID cooperating institutions involved in preparing and implementing the Evidence Summit eligible to bid for this project?

USAID Response: Yes, organization involved in preparing and implementing the MNH Evidence Summit are eligible to bid for this project. All pertinent information pertaining to and produced under the Evidence Summit are available in the updated Annex V (see Attachment 2 of this Amendment No. 01) and the Maternal Child Survival Program (MCSP) website http://www.mcsprogram.org/where-we-work/indonesia/

7. a. Is the work under the Every Mother and Newborn Counts C.4 (page 25) considered “public health practice” and hence likely to be exempted from IRB/Ethics Committee review and approval?

USAID Response: No - The EMNC is not considered “public health practice” and is not exempt from Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee review and approval.

b. Or does the mission anticipate the implementing partner needing to secure international and national Review Board clearance before commencing?

USAID Response: Yes - All necessary ethical and Government of Indonesia (GOI) approvals must be sought by the contractor as required.

c. If the latter, has the mission factored into its own timeline the often lengthy approval processes (up to a year) that would need to be navigated before beginning to field any data collection?

USAID Response: Yes – USAID has factored the often lengthy approval processes into its timeline.

8. Page 27 of the RFP states:

The ‘Every Mother and Newborn Count’ activity must be implemented at least once in Papua, West Papua, Maluku and North Maluku provinces and at least twice in DKI Jakarta and East Java, West Java, Central Java, North Sumatra and South Sulawesi provinces. The ‘Every Mother and Newborn Count’ activity must be implemented at least once in all 10 chosen districts/municipalities within 24 months of startup.

However, the EMNC activity description on page 25 and Annex IV on page 178 both mention identifying all maternal and newborn deaths in one district in each of 10 focus provinces.

Would USAID please clarify if the Every Mother and Newborn count is to be done 10 times (once for one district in each province) or 16 times (once in Papua, West Papua, Maluku and North Maluku provinces and at least twice in DKI Jakarta and East Java, West Java, Central Java, North Sumatra and South Sulawesi provinces)?

USAID Response: The Every Mother and Newborn Counts (EMNC) must be done a total of 16 times. 10 of the 16 times must be implemented within the first 24 months of startup in the 10 chosen districts/municipalities, and the remaining 6 times must be implemented after the 24th month of start-up.

9. In Section C.4 (p.27), the RFP states that, “The Contractor must have a minimum of two partnerships established and functioning across all ten USAID focus provinces within 24 months of startup.” Can USAID please clarify whether this means at least two partnerships in each province, e.g., a minimum of 20, or if this means the two partnerships must operate across the ten provinces?

Clarification Questions:

Can USAID Indonesia please clarify the definition of a “partnership,” specifically the two partnerships that must be established in each province by the end of 24 months? Is a partnership limited to the contractual partnerships established through the catalytic financing mechanism or can it define a broader partnership in which public or private financing is leveraged?

Could USAID confirm that technical assistance provided to local government to scale up a local innovation or approach constitutes a “partnership”?

USAID Response: Yes, there must be at least two different functional partnerships in each of the ten (10) USAID focus provinces. Each partnership does not have to be unique to any province because one partnership could function across several provinces.

Definition of a partnership could include both contractual partnerships established through Component 3/Catalytic financing as well as broader partnerships through which public or private financing is leveraged. Technical assistance provided to local government also constitutes a partnership, but must include quantification of public and/or private sector investment (financing, infrastructure, human resources, etc) for scale up and not only the development of policy documents. Additionally, criteria outlined in Section C.2.6, C.2.7, C.3.2 must be followed.

10. Page 27, “The contractor must not engage in Pilot programs or ‘one‐offs’… Page 28, C.5.1 “Component 1 will manage a process to source local solutions…” Page 30, C.5.3 “Component 3 will disburse and administer catalytic financing as directed by Component 1”

Is it USAID’s expectation that this activity will source new (un‐tested) innovative local solutions that may need to begin as “pilots”?

USAID Response: New ideas should be subjected to a “proof of concept” phase. However, proof of concept must include a clear pathway to scale and sustainability as defined in C.2.5, C.2.6, C.2.7, and in section C.3 of the RFP.

11. Would USAID consider moving the following illustrative indicators from C.5.1 from Component 1 to C.5.2 Component 2?

● Number of technical assistance requests received by types of organizations (government, private sector, CSO, media, etc.).

● Percentage of technical assistance assignments that have led to positive results in achieving defined outcomes.

● Percentage of technical assistance deployments receiving positive client feedback.

USAID Response: No - The illustrative indicators from C.5.1 - Component 1 cannot be moved to C.5.2 Component 2. Component 1 is the hub of the Flagship MNH Activity, while Components 2 and 3 are only activated once there is an identified need/request from Component 1. Components 2 and 3 are purely administrative functions.

12. What types of activities does USAID envision the Grants Under Contract (GUCs) will be used for? For example, could they be used to fund special research?

USAID Response: The type of activities that may be funded under the GUCs will depend on the proposed approach in Component 1. These activities may include specific research activities needed to fill MNH evidence gaps with a clear programmatic and policy implication.

13. Could USAID provide a percentage of funding that should be allocated for catalytic financing of the 25‐75 small grants?

USAID Response: The maximum amount applicable for the GUC to provide catalytic financing must not exceed $10 million. The size of the grants must be within the specified limits mentioned in ADS 302.3.4.13(c)(1).

14. Could USAID please confirm that the Windows of Opportunity is in addition to the 25‐75 small grants?

USAID Response: Funding for "Windows of Opportunity" activities (not to exceed $3M) is separate from the funding for the "Grants Under Contracts (GUCs)" (not to exceed $10M).

However, the ‘windows of opportunity’ activities could cut across all 3 Components of the Approach (see C.3.1).

SECTION D – MARKING AND BRANDING

None

SECTION E – INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

15. Would USAID consider adjusting project work plans to be prepared according to the

Indonesia fiscal year?

USAID Response: Yes - Project work plans must be prepared according to the Indonesia fiscal year.

16. Are the due dates for submission of quarterly and annual reports, specified on pages 48-50 of RFP, negotiable during the contract negotiation process?

USAID Response: For budgeting and planning purpose, we do not intend to change the due date for submission of quarterly and annual reports.

SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

17. In accordance with FAR 52.232-12 and AIDAR 752.232-70, may contractors receive payment for services through the Letter of Credit rather than submission of SF1034?

USAID Response: Yes – Per AIDAR 732.402(e), U.S. Dollar advances for for-profit organizations for any award, including advances for disbursement to grantees, must be processed and approved in accordance with ADS 636 before payment can be received through Letter of Credit.

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

None

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

None

SECTION K – REPRESENTATION, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

18. Page 120, Section L2 (d) refers to the coversheet for the expiration of the proposal. Section

12 of SF 33 is left blank which means the default 60 calendar days shall apply; however L8.1 (page 125) states that the offer must remain valid for 210 days from the solicitation closing date. Can USAID confirm the correct number of days?

Similar Question:

Section L.2 (d) (p. 120) of the RFP states “Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for the number of days specified on the solicitation cover sheet (unless a different period is proposed by the Offeror).” However, Section L.8.1 (p. 125) the RFP states that “proposals must be considered valid for a period of 210 days from the solicitation closing date.” Can USAID please confirm the period of validity for this activity?

USAID Response: Per section L.8.1, the proposal must be considered valid for a period of 210 days from the solicitation closing date. SF 33, Box 12 has been revised to include 210 calendar days.

19. Page 121, Section L2 (f)(6) reserves the Government’s right to make multiple awards. Is multiple awards anticipated and how it will be exercised?

USAID Response: Section L.2 is a mandatory clause from FAR 52.215-1. As mentioned at cover letter, USAID anticipates only to awarding one contract.

20. Would USAID consider making the receipt of the electronic copies be considered as the official submission of proposals? If so, would USAID consider allowing hard copies to arrive no later than 5 business days from the electronic submission date?

Similar Question:

● Re L.8.2 – Would USAID consider the electronic submission as meeting the deadline and allow the offeror to submit the hard copies of the proposal within seven days after the e‐submission?

Clarification Question:

Would USAID consider an electronic signature as ‘original’ for the purpose of proposal submission?

USAID Response: The instructions provided in section L.8.2 govern the format and timely submission of proposals. USAID will consider an electronic signature as ‘original’ for the purpose of proposal submission. This is reflected in the revision to section L.8.2 of the RFP.

21. a. Will USAID please confirm that Offerors are to submit the draft MERL Plan in Annex 3 of the proposal, but that a Performance Monitoring Plan that will accompany the final MERL Plan may be developed post-award.

USAID Response: Yes - Offerors must submit a draft Activity MERL Plan as Annex 3. The draft Activity MERL Plan will be considered and evaluated as part of the Offeror's proposed Technical Approach. If selected, the draft Activity MERL Plan will be finalized post award.

Please note that USAID has replaced “Performance Monitoring Plan” with the “Activity MERL Plan”.

b. The RFP specifies inclusion of Annex 3: Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning (MERL) Plan. Would USAID please provide guidance on what should be included in the plan?

Clarification Question:

The answer to above question indicates that offerors should look to section F.5.3 for guidance on formulating the MERL plan. Would USAID clarify if PIRS are required in the draft MERL Plan (Annex 3), or if it is acceptable for the selected bidder to complete PIRS post-award to allow joint discussions with USAID on final indicator selection?

USAID Response: Please refer to ADS 201.3.4.10 and Section F.5.3 of the RFP. The draft Activity MERL Plan must include necessary PIRS.

22. Section L.10 (p. 127) instructs the offeror to include the SF33 form in the technical proposal.

Given it is typically part of the cost proposal, please confirm that the SF 33 form should be included in the cost proposal, not the technical proposal.

USAID Response: Yes – SF 33 must not be submitted as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Section L.10 of the RFP has been revised. However, per section L.12.1, SF 33 must be included in the Offeror’s cost proposal.

23. Can offerors include additional annexes to the technical proposal beyond the six annexes listed in Section L.10 (pp. 127-128), as long as relevant critical information is summarized or the annex is referenced in the technical proposal?

USAID Response: No - Offerors must not submit additional annexes other than those listed in section L.10.

24. Please confirm that the narrative summary of an offeror’s use of small business concerns can be included in Annex 6, in addition to the list of eSRS reports (as stated in Section L.11.5, part B) and contact information for small business concerns (as stated in Section L.11.5, part C).

Similar Question:

●P. 131 “A) Provide a narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years.” Could USAID please confirm that this narrative should be included in Annex 6?

USAID Response: No - The narrative summary of an offeror’s use of smallbusiness concerns must be included within the 30-page limit of the technical proposal. Per section L.11.5, Annex 6 is only to cover the report or list of eSRS and Small Business Utilization that supplement the narrative summary.

25. Would USAID like all information about Past Performance for prime and subcontractors to be included in Annex 5? If not, what information should be included in the 30 pages of the Technical Approach?

USAID Response: No – Per section L.11.5, Annex 5 is only to provide the contractor and major sub-contractor past performance information. The narrative summary about Contractor Past Performance must be included within the 30-page limit of the technical proposal.

26. Section L.10 (page 127) calls for “ONLY 12 pt. font Times New Roman to be used.” May offerors use a smaller, still readable font for graphics, tables, and text boxes?

Similar Questions:

● Section L.10 (p. 127) instructs the offeror to use “ONLY 12 pt font Times New Roman.”

May offerors use a smaller, still readable font for graphics, tables, and text boxes (i.e. 9 pt font) as is customary?

● Please confirm that tables and graphics can use a font and size other than 12 pt font Times New Roman so long as they are readable?

● The RFP specifies that the Technical Proposal must be in 12-point font Times New Roman. Would USAID consider allowing tables, figures, and graphics in Times New Roman 10-point font?

● Re L.10 ‐‐ May the offeror use an alternative font and size in tables, graphics, and textboxes?

● Could USAID please confirm that a smaller font size (e.g. 9 point TNR) may be used for tables and charts?

Clarification Questions:

Will USAID kindly clarify that Offerors are not required to use TNR 10pt font on all tables, charts and other graphics that appear in the Annex to the Technical Proposal? For example, can the organizational chart use alternative font so long as it is readable?

While we recognize USAID’s direction to use TNR 12 and 10 point fonts for all text, tables, and boxes, may offerors include proposal graphics that use other fonts? Some are designed in graphics software that does not support TNR font.

Can this font size also be used for footnotes?

Would USAID consider allowing the use of a san serif font like Gotham, Myriad Pro or Arial for graphics which is clearer in 10 point font than Times New Roman?

USAID Response: Yes - Offerors may use no smaller than 10-pt font only for footnotes, tables, charts and other graphics. The type of font for these footnotes, tables, charts, and other graphics is at the discretion of the Offeror but must be clearly readable. This is reflected in the revision to section L.10 of the RFP.

27. Section L.11.3 (pages 128 to 129) calls for a statement of qualification (SOQ) to be submitted for each key personnel in Annex 2, and requires these not to be a “restatement of CVs.” Please confirm that CVs are not required in addition to the SOQs.

USAID Response: Yes - CVs of key personnel are not required for this submission.

28. Regarding RFP Section L.11.3, Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, (p. 128), can offerors include the staffing matrix, including technical and management expertise and skills of proposed staff and STTA, in Annex 1 (Staffing Plan and Organization Chart), or must this matrix be included within the 30 page proposal narrative?

● Section L.11.3 requires that submissions present a full Staffing Plan, inclusive of narrative description, staffing matrix, and organizational chart. Please confirm that the staffing matrix may be included in Annex 1 – Staffing Plan and Organization Chart and is not required within the Technical Proposal page limitation.

Can USAID please clarify if offerors are to: a) include a matrix of key personnel skills in the technical proposal and a full staffing matrix (including other long- and short-term personnel) in Annex 1; or b) only submit a matrix of key personnel skills, included in the 30-page technical proposal?

USAID Response: No - Per section L.11.3, narrative description of the full staffing plan must be presented within the 30-page limit of the technical proposal. The full staffing matrix (including key personnel, long- and short-term personnel) and organizational chart must be included in Annex 1.

29. On p.129, with regard to key personnel, the RFP states that statements of qualification (SOQ) must not be a restatement of CVs or resumes. It also states that “SOQ must be included as Annexes to the Technical Proposal.” Can USAID clarify if the SOQ should be presented in the technical proposal Key Personnel and Staffing Plan section in addition to being in the annex, or only in the annex?

Would USAID kindly confirm that all information requested within section L.11.3 Key Personnel and Staffing may be presented in Annexes 1 and 2?

From the Bidders’ Conference material, the answers to question above indicate that “the Statement of Qualification (SOQ) must be included in Annex 1 in addition to letters of commitment and reference information for the proposed key personnel.” However, the answers to above question indicate SOQs are to be provided in Annex 2. Please confirm that the SOQ, along with letters of commitment and reference information, belongs in Annex 2.

Can USAID confirm that SOQs with accompanying letters of commitment and references should be included in Annex 2 to the technical proposal (rather than Annex 1 as mentioned in the response to Q24 from the Bidders’ Conference material)?

USAID Response: This response revised the typo in the Bidders’ Conference material. The Statement of Qualification (SOQ) must be included in Annex 2 in addition to letter of commitment and reference information for the proposed key personnel. The Key Personnel and Staffing Plan section may incorporate discussions in the SOQs for proposed key personnel to highlight “how the Offeror’s proposed combination of Key Personnel, long term staff, and short term technical assistance will collectively possess the required technical and management expertise and skills to lead the activities and deliver the results expected.” (see Section L.11.3).

30. Section L.11.3 states:

Submissions must present a Staffing Plan, which includes a narrative description and a staffing matrix that explains how the Offeror’s proposed combination of Key Personnel, long term staff, and short term technical assistance will collectively possess the required technical and management expertise and skills to lead the activities and deliver the results expected. Offerors must present clear rationale for the proposed five key personnel candidates (see Section F.4. Key Personnel).Offerors are required to submit a full staffing plan with an organizational chart be included as Annexes to the Technical Proposal.

Would USAID please clarify the difference between the presentation of staffing in the technical proposal Staffing Plan and in Annex 1?

USAID Response: The presentation of staffing in the technical proposal is a narrative description of the full staffing plan. The full staffing matrix and organizational chart in Annex 1 is a graphic presentation of the staffing plan described in the technical proposal.

31. On page 129 under section L.11.3, under the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) sub heading, the RFP states:

The plan must also outline how the Chief of Party will liaise with the COR, in-country staff, and reporting and management across subcontractors and other partners (if applicable). The plan must include how the Contractor will adequately leverage the capabilities of all subcontractors. The plan must also outline lines of authority within the project. Special attention must be paid to how the collaborative relationships with the key stakeholders who are essential to the success of the project will be managed.

Please confirm whether these instructions refer to content that should appear within the Key Personnel and Staffing Plan or the Management Plan.

If this information belongs within the Key Personnel and Staffing Plan section, as it is included under the SOQ sub-heading, please confirm the appropriate annex to place this information.

USAID Response: Yes – The instructions refer to content that should appear as part of the Key Personnel and Staffing Plan within the 30-page limit of the technical proposal. This is reflected in a revision to section L.11.3 of the RFP.

32. Section L.11.5 (p. 131) of the RFP states: “List in an annex (Annex 5) to the technical proposal up to five references of recently completed contracts or orders or assistance awards of five (5) years for the prime inclusive of major subcontractors for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.”

a. The Flagship MNH Activity proposes a new approach to partnership in delivering development aid for social impact. Given the new and innovative nature of this approach, primes and subcontractors may have relevant experience that has been initiated only in the past few years and is still ongoing. To best allow bidders to demonstrate their most relevant experience, could USAID consider allowing PPRs of projects that are not yet complete, but have completed significant relevant activities? Presenting PPRs for relevant projects that might not yet be completed is typically allowed for other USAID RFP/RFAs.

b. Would USAID consider inclusion of projects that have duration of less than five years if the offeror justifies them as strongly relevant to the Flagship MNH activity? The five year requirement limits inclusion of a number of qualified and relevant small businesses. We request that USAID reconsider any period of performance requirement.

● Re L.11. 5 Would USAID accept past performance information from currently active projects?

● Re L.11.5 Would USAID accept past performance information from projects of similar scope and size, but of less than 5 years duration (e.g. 3 or 4)

The answer to this question indicates only currently active contracts that have completed CPARS may be used. Please confirm that offerors can use currently active non-US government clients and assistance agreements as past performance references in Annex 5.

USAID originally wrote that Offerors should list references of recently completed contracts or orders or assistance awards. In the Q&A, USAID revised the requirement that Offerors may “submit past performance references of completed or from currently active contracts that have annually completed CPARS.” As the requirement of a CPARS reviewed past performance reference was not initially requested in the RFP, would USAID kindly consider accepting past performance references of completed or currently active contracts that have completed an annual performance review process, though from a non-donor?

Please confirm that offerors can include past performance information for currently active cooperative agreements, per the reference to “contracts/orders/assistance awards” on page 131 of the RFP. If so, please clarify what form of documentation, if any, the offeror is required to submit since cooperative agreements and non-USG funded programs are not entered into CPARS. Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit the actual CPARS reports as part of the past performance information for currently active contracts.

The answers to parts a & b indicate that USAID will consider contractor’s past performance information from currently active contracts that already have annually completed CPARS. However, section L.11.5 of the RFP states that the 5 references may come from contracts or orders or assistance awards. Can currently active or completed within the past 5 years orders or assistance awards be used as past performance references? They are not subject to the CPARS process.

Given the answer to question above, “USAID says they will consider contractor’s past performance information from currently active contracts that already have annually completed CPARS.” Can USAID please confirm that past performance references from Cooperative Agreements of similar scope and size would be acceptable to submit for past performance given that Cooperative Agreements do not generate CPARs?

USAID Response:

a. In accordance with required information in attachment 4, USAID will consider references from completed and currently active contracts or assistance awards from U.S. Government and/or non-U.S. Government past performance databases. Past Performance form provided at Attachment 4 is revised. The Offeror should submit the revised Past Performance form in Annex 5 to the technical proposal.

b. Past performance information from completed contracts or assistance awards of less than five (5) years duration and currently active contracts or assistance awards will be accepted in Annex 5, per section L.11.5. This is reflected in a revision to section L.11.5.

33. Section L.11.5.2 (p. 131) instructs the Offeror to include in its past performance information the following: scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks; primary location(s) of work;

and term of performance. However, the table in Attachment 4 – Contractor’s Past Performance Report (Short Form) (p. 155) does not have a section for this information. Can USAID please clarify if these sections were inadvertently left out of the table or does USAID want this information provided in an attachment to the form (as noted at the bottom of page 155)?

Similar questions:

● Section L.11.5 (Contractor Past Performance Information) on page 130 requests that the offerors use the provided Past Performance Short Form (Attachment 4), but requests offerors include relevant indicators of performance to include “similar size, contract types, type of work, scope of work, complexity/diversity of tasks, magnitude of effort;

skills/expertise required, location of work to be performed, required levels of technology;

nature of the business area(s) involved, etc. and how recently they were performed.”

Can USAID please confirm this additional information can also be included in Annex 5 as there is no place in the Attachment 4 – Contractor’s Past Performance Report (Short Form) to list this info?

● According to page 30 of the RFP, offerors are required to include up to five performance references for the contractor and any major subcontractors, presented in the Attachment 4 form provided as an annex to the solicitation. However, Attachment 4 does not indicate a space to provide each reference program’s scope of work. Does USAID prefer that the offeror submit program scope of work as an attachment to the past performance table, as specified in Attachment 4? Or should we include it under Part 1: Contractor Information?

● P. 131 “2. For each contracts/orders/assistance awards listed above, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e‐mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description of the performance to include:

• Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks,

• Primary location(s) of work,

• Term of performance,…”

Could USAID please provide instructions for the Applicant where to include the “scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks, primary location of work, and term of performance” in the Past Performance Short Form provided in Attachment 4?

USAID Response: Attachment 4 of the RFP has been revised to include the past performance information requested in section L.11.5(a)(1).

34. Some donors (DFID is an example) provide annual and final performance assessments but will not respond to requests for references. If the Offeror provides, along with its Past Performance Reference, copies of formal client performance assessments, will that satisfy the need for performance information so that the project example will be included in the evaluation score for Contractor Past Performance Information?

Can USAID please clarify if offerors may submit past performance information for non- USAID donors (e.g., DFAT, DFID)? If so, what past performance support or documentation can be provided, since some of these donors do not respond to requests for references?

USAID Response: No – Copies of formal client performance assessments submitted by the offeror will not be reviewed. Per section M.3.4, USAID may use past performance information obtained from other resources, if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an offeror’s performance.

35. In Section L.11.5, eSRS reports and SF-294 forms for the past three years are requested.

Our hardcopy SF-294s for the past three years total more than 800 pages. In addition to our 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 SF-294s totaling 40 MB and 800 pages, may we submit only 10 relevant SF-294s that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

USAID Response: Yes - Offerors may submit up to 10 relevant SF-294. This is reflected in the revision to section L.11.5 (d)(A) of the RFP.

36. Could USAID please confirm if offerors should budget for grants administration labor and associated other direct costs (e.g. travel related to supporting financial aspects grant administration) under CLIN 3 for catalytic financing?

USAID Response: Offerors have the discretion to budget for associated grants administration and other direct costs under CLIN 3, with full explanation in the budget narrative. However, such costs must not be included as part of the funding allocated towards Grants Under Contract, which is not to exceed $10million.

37. For the purposes of budgeting, could USAID please provide the estimated start date for this program?

● Could USAID please suggest a month for the start date, for budgeting purposes?

USAID Response: USAID will not inform the estimated start date for this program.

38. Section L.12.2 Part 2 (d) (p. 137) instructs the offeror to submit 1420s “for each proposed staff member.” Could USAID please confirm if the offeror only needs to provide 1420s for staff included in its budget, and that 1420s for consultants will be required at a later date?

USAID Response: The AID Form 1420-17 is required for each proposed staff member listed in Offeror’s staffing plan and will be required for consultants proposed at a later date.

39. Page 134, Section L.12.2, Part 2, requires that offeror, for budgeting purposes to consider annual salary increase not to exceed 5%. Does this percentage apply to all type of employees (USN, TCN and CCN)? Is this applicable to consultants’ line item as well?

USAID Response: Yes – For budgeting purposes annual salary increases not to exceed 5% apply to all type of employees (USN, TCN and CCN) and consultants.

40. Section L.12.2 Part 2 (page 138) requires that the CCN salaries be stated in Indonesian

Rupiah. Could USAID please provide the exchange rate to be used by offerors?

USAID Response: Offerors must apply a uniform currency exchange rate of 1 U.S. Dollar equivalent to Indonesian Rupiah (Rp) 13,000 for all budget assumptions. This will be reflected in a revision of section L.12 of the RFP.

41. Section L.12.2 Part 2 – Proposed Costs (p. 134): Successfully implementing this unique project design will require top-level Indonesian talent, many of whom have worked in the private sector or internationally, whose past salaries are above the Indonesia LCP scale presented in the RFP. Please clarify if bidders are required to propose local salaries within the LCP scale presented on page 134 or if, as the note seems to suggest, we can propose higher salaries provided they are proposed in accordance with our personnel policies and USG regulations.

USAID Response: Per section L.12.2, the illustrative U.S Embassy Local Compensation Plan is provided for general guidance as part of the labor market in Indonesia but is not solely determinative. Salary and wage rates must be proposed in accordance with the Contractor’s personnel policies, U.S Government regulations, and the market value of labor in Indonesia and must be allowable, allocable and reasonable. The budget narrative must explain how Offerors arrived at the proposed rates of salaries as well as provided any market research that contributed to the proposed rates.

42. May USAID please provide the Local Compensation Plan for Indonesia?

USAID Response: Please see the Local Compensation Plan provided in Section L.12.2 Part 2 – Proposed Costs.

43. Page 137, Section L12.2(a), Fixed Fee states that it is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for subawards. Could USAID confirm what is meant by subawards

– e.g.subcontracts or Grants under Contracts (GUCs)?

USAID Response: Subawards include subcontracts and subgrants, such as GUCs, under this contract.

44. Section L.12.2 Part 2 (p. 137) of the RFP states, “it is not expected that fee will be applied to other than direct costs for sub-awards” Could USAID please confirm that the intent is for offerors to apply a fee only on the direct costs proposed for each subcontractor, less their NICRA and fee amounts?

CLARIFICATION QUESTION:

Please confirm that subs should calculate their fee based on direct + indirect costs but that the prime should only calculate our fee based on the subs' direct costs (i.e.

not including their indirect costs or fee) and not on their total budget.

Would USAID please clarify the FAR rule or regulation that supports this specific instruction? A review of FAR 15.404-4 does not indicate such restrictions.

USAID Response: The specific instruction has been deleted. Section L.12.2 Part 2 – Fixed Fee has been revised.

45. Page 135, Section L.12.2, Part 2, requires Contractors to consider leasing/rental of vehicles rather than purchase. Do we have a blanket Source/Nationality waiver in place, or will a specific waiver will be issued for long term leases of vehicles waiving the special source/nationality requirements in 22 CFR 228.19(b)?

USAID Response: For long-term leased vehicles, USAID/Indonesia relies on an Agency-wide blanket waiver of the U.S. manufacture requirement for right-hand drive motor vehicles as specified in the ADS 312.3.3.2 - b.2.

46. Would USAID kindly confirm if the plugged amount of up to $3 million for Windows of

Opportunity Fund includes administrative costs for implementing the fund and fee?

USAID Response: No – The plugged amount of up to $3 million for Windows of Opportunity Fund must include administrative costs (if applicable).

47. Section L.12.3 Part 3, requires the offeror to complete and sign all the Representations, Certification and Other Statement as described in Section K. Would the offerors that submitted section K online via www.sam.gov, be still required to submit a completed signed hard copy of this section?

USAID Response: No - Online submission of Annual Representations, Certifications and Other Statement via www.sam.gov would be sufficient if the Offeror choose paragraph (d) of the provision under FAR 52.204-8. Please indicate in section K of your proposal if online certifications and other statements were submitted.

48. Please confirm that the exception for provision of NICRA that was given for Small Business

Offerors under section L.12.2 Part 2, subsection (iii), (page 136) of the RFP applies to Small Business Subcontractors as well.

USAID Response: Yes – It applies for both small business Offerors and proposed small business Subcontractors.

49. Per section L.12.5 Part 5 (1) the subcontractors are required to submit a letter, on their letterhead, and signed by their authorized representative, which specifically indicates the subcontractor's agreement to be included in the Contractor's proposed teaming arrangement. Could USAID please confirm that a Letter of Commitment in subcontractor’s letterhead, signed by their representative will satisfy this requirement?

USAID Response: Yes – A letter of commitment from the proposed subcontractor(s) will satisfy the requirement. Please also note the requirement to submit a copy of the agreement between the parties if the offeror is a joint venture or partnership.

50. Section L.12.5, Part 5 – Subcontractor Information, instructs offerors to submit the information requested in Parts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Section L.12 for each proposed subcontractor. However, in Part 2 (page 132) and Part 7 (page 139), the requirements seem to be applicable only to the offeror and major subcontractors, and the requirements stipulated in Part 3 (page 138) seem to be applicable only to the offeror. Please clarify.

● Can USAID please confirm that Cost Proposal Parts 2, 3, 4, and 6 are required for all subcontractors, but Part 7 is required only for major subcontractors (per RFP pg. 139)?

● In Section L.12.5 Part 5 – Subcontractor Information (p. 138), the RFP includes the following instruction about what information must be provided for proposed subcontractors – “…(4) The information requested above in Parts (2), (3), (4), (6), and

(7) for each subcontractor.” This appears to contradict the instructions provided in these specific sections.

Part 3 – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Contractor (p. 138) instructs “the Offeror” must submit these.

Part 4 – Policies and Procedures (p. 138) indicates that this component will be required only upon request from the Contracting Officer.

Part 6 – Evidence of Responsibility (p. 138) instructs only the Offeror must submit this.

Part 7 – Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences (p. 139) requests this component from the Offeror and each major subcontractor.

Please clarify which components are required for the Offeror only and which are required for Offeror and all subcontractors. Also, please confirm that Part 4 is not required at proposal submission.

● Parts 3, 4 and 6 in the instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal (section L.12) refer to providing information to USAID by the offeror. Part 7 refers to information provided to USAID by the offeror and each proposed major subcontractor. However, in part 5 USAID specify that the offeror must provide information requested in parts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Could USAID please confirm if they would like offerors to provide only part 2 for subcontractors and exempt parts, 3, 4, 6, and 7?

USAID Response: The information requested for Parts (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) are for each proposed major subcontractor.

51. Section L.12.5 Part 5– Subcontractor information (4) (p. 138), states that offerors are required to submit “The information requested above in Parts (2), (3), (4,), (6), and (7) for each subcontractor.” Could USAID please confirm whether the requirement for offerors to provide an overall summary budget, detailed budget per year and budget narrative extends to subcontractors who may be named in the proposal but not allocated a specific budget amount? There may be cases where the scope of work, and budget requirement, for a proposed subcontractor will be defined during project implementation. In these cases, can the subcontractor be named in the budget as part of a “Subcontractor Pool” with the specific scope and budget developed and approved by USAID during implementation?

USAID Response: Yes – In cases where the statement of work and budget for a proposed subcontractor will be defined during project implementation, the subcontractor may be named in the budget as part of a “subcontractor pool.” However, in order to be considered by the Contracting Officer for consent of subcontractor(s) to be granted with the initial award, major subcontractor must be identified and the requested information, per section L.12.5 Part 5 sub-part 4, must be submitted in the Offeror’s proposal.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52. The Evaluation Factors listed on page 142 do not include a review of the MERL plan. With the MERL plan be evaluated?

USAID Response: Yes - The draft Activity MERL Plan will be considered and evaluated as part of the Offerror’s proposed Technical Approach. See USAID Response number 21 as above.

53. Could USAD please confirm that the Branding Implementation and Marking Plan should be submitted as Annex 7 of the Technical Proposal?

USAID Response: Yes - The Branding Implementation and Marking Plan must be included as Annex 4 of the technical proposal. See section L.13 page 140 of the solicitation for the instructions for the preparation of the Branding Implementation and Marking Plan.

54. Could USAID please provide points for the four evaluation factors presented in M.3, page

142?

USAID Response: USAID has decided not to assign numerical scores for each evaluation criteria. The order of importance among the technical criteria is provided under section M.3 of the RFP.

ATTACHMENT 1 – CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET

55. Attachment 1 – Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet –a note is included on the attachment stating that, “for local staff, please indicate the salary in Indonesian Rupiah.”

However, the Form AID 1420 indicates “Dollars” in boxes 14 and 15. Could USAID please confirm that the earnings history in sections 14 and 15 should be in US Dollars?

USAID Response: Earning history in boxes 14 and 15 for proposed local staff must be indicated in Indonesian Rupiah. The proposed salary in box 6 must also be indicated in Indonesian Rupiah.

ATTACHMENT 2 – SF LLL – DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

56. May USAID please confirm that the applicable CFDA number for this award is 98.001?

USAID Response: Yes, the CFDA number for this award is 98.001

ATTACHMENT 3 – CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST AND PRICING DATA

57. Could USAID please confirm that Attachment 3 - Certification of Current Cost and Pricing Data (p. 154) should be completed upon Award and is not required to be submitted as part of each proposal?

● Page 154, Attachment 3 – Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing Data, In accordance with the standards in FAR Part 15.403 – 1 (b) 1 and (c) 1, we respectfully request the removal of the requirement for bidders to submit a certificate of current cost and pricing.

Our request is based on the premise that there will be more than adequate competition among bidders to conduct a cost analysis to determine cost allowability and reasonableness.

USAID Response: It has been determined that Attachment 3 – Certification of Current Cost and Pricing Data is waived and will not be required based on adequate price competition.

This will be reflected in a revision of the RFP.

ATTACHMENT 4 – CONTRACTOR’S PAST PERFORMANCE REPORT (SHORT FORM)

58. Please clarify if Offerors may include Past Performance Short Forms for subcontractors whose proposed costs will not exceed 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost but are responsible for technical leadership of a major component/sub-component of the Flagship Maternal Newborn Health Activity scope of work.

If yes, please confirm whether subcontractor Past Performance Short Forms contribute to the “up to five references” that can be put forward by the prime Offeror.

USAID Response: No – Per section L.11.5, Past Performance Form is required for the Offeror, the Offeror’s teaming arrangement (if any) and each major subcontractor (defined as one whose proposed costs exceeds 10% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost). Please also refer to response no.33 for the revised Past Performance Form.

ATTACHMENT 5 – SAMPLE SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

ATTACHMENT 6 – REFERENCES

59. In Annex IV, Page 179, Task 6.c specifies “CRVS and routine reporting methods.” Is it possible to clarify which specific routine reporting methods are being referenced?

USAID Response: This refers to the Indonesia routine Health Management Information Systems.

OTHERS

60. Will USAID be funding any projects/programs/buyins that will fund related MNH communications, SBCC and/or media work?

USAID Response: No - USAID does not anticipate funding “stand alone” related MNH communications, SBCC and/or media work

61. a. Would USAID please provide a copy of the most recent bilateral agreement covering economic and technical cooperation between the United States of America and the Government of Indonesia?

USAID Response: Please see the USAID Indonesia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) in https://www.usaid.gov/indonesia/cdcs

b. Does USAID have an enhanced partnership agreement with the Government of Indonesia? If so, would USAID please provide a copy of the agreement?

USAID Response: Copy of the above mentioned partnership agreement cannot be provided.

PART 2 – SPECIFIC CHANGES to SOL-497-16-000010

Major changes to the RFP are listed below. Please refer to the revised RFP (with track changes) for all changes.

SECTION A - SF 33,…