The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
SOL-611-16-000001 USAID PEPFAR/SAFE Questions & Answers
Section C
| 1 |
| Page 24, Obj. 2 – The RFP states that the contractor should, “seek to unblock bottlenecks that hamper service delivery efforts.” Has USAID already identified a set of bottlenecks, or will the contractor be identifying these? |
| There are a number of well-documented challenges in the delivery high-quality health care services in Zambia. It is expected that the offeror will propose solutions in applications. However, it is expected that certain bottlenecks will differ by site and will require limited—yet expedited—assessment following contract issuance. |
| 2 |
| Page 26, Outcome 2.2 – The RFP refers to, “continuous quality improvement and quality assurance.” Does USAID have any specific international standards that it would like to have met, or is the identification of the standards for improvement and quality up to the contractor? |
| No, USAID does not have any specific international standard that it would like to have met. |
| 3 |
| Page 31, Outcome 5.2 - Are there any specific procurement standards (e.g., USG, World Bank, etc.) USAID would like the contractor to use, or is USAID open to the contractor recommending standards? |
| It is expected that the offeror will strengthen and support Government of Zambia’s procurement standards and regulations. |
| 4 |
| Page 31, Outcome 5.3, Task 5.3.1 - Are there any specific ethics or integrity standards USAID would like the contractor to use, or is USAID open to the contractor recommending standards? |
| Please propose approaches to strengthening ethics or integrity standards related to procurement policies and internal control systems. |
| 5 |
| For Objective 2 and 5, to the extent the contractor uses capacity assessments to gauge current capacity of government or other organizations, does USAID have a preferred assessment tool or set of tools it would like to have used? |
| Objective 2: USAID does not require a specific tool assess the capacity of the MOH and MCD at the provincial and district levels to provide comprehensive, high-impact HIV/AIDS services. |
Objective 5: USAID does not require a specific tool for measuring GRZ capacity manage G2G activities.
| 6 |
| On page 32, there are two Task 5.4.2. Should the latter one be labelled 5.4.3? |
| USAID amended the RFP to reflect correct numbers. |
| 7 |
| On page 30, the RFP states “the SAFE contractor must provide assistance to the MoH, as well as the Ministry of Finance, to ensure…” – What is USAID’s vision on the National AIDS Council’s involvement? It seems that NAC would also receive technical assistance due to their strategic role in M&E of HIV / AIDS response. |
| As this relates solely to G2G assistance, NAC will not be involved in the provision of assistance to the MOH and MOF. In terms of technical assistance to the NAC, assistance is not expected under SAFE. |
| 8 |
| The capacity building plans under objective 2 are targeted for Scale up and Sustained districts. What is the capacity building plan for centrally supported provinces and districts? |
| Please refer to Table 1 which details the varying levels of capacity building at the scale up, sustained and centrally supported sites. |
| 9 |
| Will the Contractor be required to manage the budget at a total cost level (i.e. as listed in Sect B.3 of the solicitation), or at a more detailed level (i.e. by CLIN as listed in Section B4)? If the latter, what type of budget line item flexibility will be required for each CLIN and between CLINs? |
| CLINs 2 through 8 are options that will only be exercised if the G2G agreements are not put in place. If an option is exercised for any of these CLINs, USAID does not expect the contractor to manage the budgets separately since the services should be a part of one integrated work plan and it will be a continuation of services that the Contractor is already providing from the beginning of the period of performance. |
| 10 | |
| On page 31, “Outcome 5.4 Transition key component of SAFE to the GRZ completed” includes “Table 2. Transition timelines for specific activities.” Would it be acceptable to USAID to propose an alternate timeline? b) Does this transition include only centrally supported sites or only scale up sites? | |
| A) | Yes, the RFP was amended to address this. |
| B) | This includes all sites regardless of prioritization category. | |
| 11 |
| On page 11, Outcome 5.1, are the budgetary systems related to USG money, specifically, or general funding? |
| Outcome 5.1 is related to all funds that flow through GRZ systems. |
| 12 |
| On page 28, the RFP states, “Concurrent to this capacity building approach, the USAID/GRZ G2G mechanism will provide resources to the GRZ to purchase anthropometric equipment, nutritional supplements, water purification methods, print training manuals, wall charts and guidelines, as well as hire staff. Should these activities be budgeted for in Years 1 and 2? |
| No |
| 13 |
| On page 35, the RFP says that Program Support Grants to local governments are provided through provincial health offices. What is the vision for how Provincial Health Offices will be used in the disbursement of grants? What is the authority level Provincial Health Offices? How far down does it go? |
| We expect that Provincial Medical Offices will be involved in the approval and oversight of the grants under contract issued by the SAFE project. Category A and B grants do not have restrictions related to the depth of health sector assistance. |
| 14 |
| On page 31, Outcome 5.1 does not cover budgeting issues such as national development planning; participatory budgeting and consultation with civil society in planning and budgeting; or parliamentary review of the budget. Is the narrow scope for the budget systems activities intended, or is support also required for these aspects of the budgeting process? |
| Each Offeror should propose its own approach to achieving the outcomes and carrying out the tasks outlined under Outcome 5.1. |
| 15 |
| Regarding Task 1.1.6: Will the SAFE contractor be procuring reagents, supplies, and lab commodities, capital lab equipment, and drugs and pharmaceuticals throughout the life of the project - or will this procurement be undertaken by another USG-funded mechanism/program? |
| For the most part, pharmaceutical supplies and medications will be handled by our supply chain contract. However, Offerors are expected to respond to commodity gaps in time-limited instances, to ensure uninterrupted provision of high-quality services. Offerors should estimate $15 million over the life of the project for equipment and infrastructure modification to support project needs. |
| 16 |
| Regarding Task 2.1.1: Can the procurement of motor vehicles to support GRZ HIV program implementation be extended to strengthen the last mile distribution of supplies at decentralized level? |
| Yes |
| 17 |
| Is the procurement functionality expected to shift to MSL at the inception of SAFE or will this be a gradual process during the course of the project? |
| No we do not expect it to shift to MSL at the inception of SAFE and this will not be a gradual process during the course of the project. |
| 18 |
| Regarding Task 4.1.5: “Procure and deliver vitamin fortified high energy protein supplements (HEPS) and ready-to-use therapeutic feed (RUTF) according to WHO standards for RUTFs and Zambian Bureau of Standards for HEPS” – Will this be done alongside the current procurement and delivery sub-systems established by GRZ? |
| Yes |
| 19 |
| Will the 'grants' to GRZ be administered by USAID or by the project - or by both? There appear to be references to both in the RFP. |
| There will be two modalities of investment. First, USAID will be making direct investments to the GRZ. SAFE will serve as a technical assistance provider to the GRZ in this regard. The second modality of investment is GUCs, which will be administered by the SAFE contractor. |
| 20 |
| On page 34, for CLIN 008, no end date is specified. Please clarify the end date. |
| USAID amended the RFP to include the end date. |
| 21 |
| On page 33, for CLIN 006, it is not clear whether the Contractor must procure and deliver HEPS and RUTF starting in Years Four and Year Five of the period of performance or the first two years of the contract. Please clarify the start and end dates for the Contractor’s activities? |
| Offerors must keep in mind that CLINs 002 – 008 are for Optional Services. Every task that falls under CLIN 001 (all five objectives) MUST begin in Year 1 of the period of performance unless stated otherwise. The transition table outlines the timelines for which the Contractor will discontinue providing stated services and the GRZ will take over responsibility. All CLINs for Optional Services are meant to be USAID/Zambia’s “Plan B” just in case the GRZ is unable to take over the stated functions and we need the Contractor to continue performing tasks that the Contractor was already performing since Year 1 of the period of performance per CLIN 001 of the Statement of Work. This will mitigate the risk of USAID needing to negotiate an increase in the total estimated cost should the GRZ not be able to assume these responsibilities within USAID’s projected timeframe. No task listed under any option, including CLIN 006 is brand new. For activity 4.9, CLIN 006, if activated, the Contractor will continue activities in Year Three. Please keep in mind that the NACS services are expected to transition to the GRZ for direct investment only in Year Three (table 2) so Offerors should budget to provide these services before that time. |
| 22 |
| On page 33, for CLIN 003, it is not clear whether the Contractor must provide technical and material assistance to the GRZ to roll out national clinical policies beginning with Year Two through Year Five of the period of performance or starting during the first and/or second year of the contract. If the latter, an end date is not known. Please clarify the start and end dates for the Contractor’s activities. |
| USAID does not understand the confusion expressed in this question. The beginning date is Year Two and the end date will be the end of Year Five of the contract as stated. Direct G2G investment is expected to transition at the end of contract Year One (per Table 2, page 31). |
| 23 |
| Is Objective 5 purely for G2G funds or general since G2G funds will go through GRZ system. |
| The overall objective is to strengthen governmental systems irrespective of the origination of funds. However, it is important to be aware that USAID will be investing US government funds through GRZ systems for the first time in Zambia. |
| 24 |
| For the grants, is there a geographical limitation as to where they can be used? For instance can PMOs get the grants and use it on centrally supported districts? |
| No, there is not a geographical limitation as to where they can be used as long as it is within the scope of the Statement of Work. |
| 25 |
| On page 32, Task 5.4.1 “Develop joint transition plans..” Please define ‘joint’ in this context. Is this between USAID, MoH HQ, MSL HQ and the individual Provincial Health Administrations and District Health facilities? |
| Joint is defined as contractor, USAID and relevant GRZ officials. |
| 26 |
| On page 30, it talks about USAIDS G2G Risk Mitigation plan. Is this a public document and can we access it? |
| The risk mitigation plans are not yet available. |
| 27 |
| On page 30, Performance Standards for Outcomes 4.1 and 4.2, lists the standard of “QI plans implemented”. Are these QI plans distinct from the CQI plans implemented under Outcome 2.2 (page 27)? Similarly, page 23 refers to CQI plans. Are we to assume that these are a subset of the sites implementing CQI plans under Outcome 2.2 and that sites may be counted under multiple indicators? |
| The QI plans referenced under Performance Standards for Outcomes 4.1 and 4.2 are specific to NACS services and may be considered a subset of the QI plans referenced under Outcomes 1.2 and 2.2, which include all HIV services. In this instance, sites may be counted under multiple indicators. |
| 28 |
| How does USAID envision data management support in the centrally supported districts? Currently, ZPCT IIB supports data entry clerks (DECs) in ART sites that are now classified under SAFE as centrally supported. The RFP stipulates that grants under contract to local partners (provincial medical offices) will support non-wage expenditures. Will the project still collect data from those districts that are centrally supported? If so, can there be an exception for the non-wage expenditure to support the salaries of the DECs? |
| USAID will continue to collect data from centrally supported sites. It is reasonable to assume that DEC salaries can be supported in centrally supported sites until defined staffing norms are approved by the GRZ. ZPCTIIB also supports other staff to improve health outcomes, these are detailed in their workplans, which are available in the Development Experience Clearinghouse. |
| 29 |
| Are there any restrictions to issuing subcontracts to sub-national units of the GRZ? The solicitation mainly focuses on GUCs. |
| Contractors will not be allowed to issue subcontracts to GRZ entities. |
| 30 |
| We note and applaud the plan for careful external evaluation of SAFE. We also note that the evaluation team will have input into the site selection process under the SAFE contract. Will the external evaluation team be identified at the start of SAFE so that project activities, including site section in consultation with GRZ and USAID, can proceed so as to keep pace with the COP delivery obligations for the SAFE contractor? |
| Yes, USAID anticipates the impact evaluation team will be in place at the beginning of SAFE’s period of performance. |
| 31 |
| Each CLIN Option for increased quantities has a budget implication. Should each option be included in the budget to the worst case scenario where GRZ is unable to absorb and pay for the required activities in the SAFE period of performance? |
| Offerors are to submit separate budgets for each CLIN Option that provides a realistic educated projection of costs to provide these services. Every task that is included in the Optional CLINs is a task the Contractor will have been implementing from the beginning of the period of performance. |
| 32 |
| On page 29, task 4.1.9, a reference is made to information “exchange” communication, which we assume should have read Information Education and Communication (IEC)? Further, does USAID envision the use of both mass and little media to support SAFE outcomes in the SAFE IEC and BCC efforts? |
| Yes, IEC but to a limited degree. |
| 33 |
| On page 34, there seems to be a conflict between task 2.3.4 and CLIN 008 Option for increased services. Will the SAFE contractor be responsible to accompany USG SIMS visits throughout the period of performance, or only in years 4 and 5? |
| USAID amended the RFP to reflect Task 2.3.2. |
| 34 |
| How many SIMS site visits should be planned for each quarter? |
| USAID expects to conduct 10 SIMS visits per quarter with the SAFE Contractor’s support. |
| 35 |
| Will construction of facilities to augment needed space for HIV services be deemed allowable under this contract. |
| Yes. |
| 36 |
| We note the reference to “incentives” tables provided for all outcomes. Other than linking performance to the systematic personnel reviews conducted by GRZ MOH each year, can USAID specify the range of incentives that would be deemed appropriate in the context of this contract? For example, would performance based financial incentives at the district level be deemed appropriate? |
| USAID amended the RFP to remove the Incentives column. |
| 37 |
| The SAFE RFP outlines a “minimum” set of tasks under 1.1. Please verify whether PEPFAR resources under SAFE can be used for the detection and treatment of cervical cancer in the context of comprehensive services. |
| Cervical cancer detection is considered a non-core activity under PEPFAR 3.0 and will therefore not be supported within the SAFE project. |
| 38 |
| The SAFE RFP mentions 3 classifications for the districts: scale up, sustained and centrally supported. However, the map on page 17 includes 4 classifications: scale up to saturation, aggressive scale up, sustained and central support. Please verify that the classification of the districts will adhere to the stated 3 categories: scale up, sustained and centrally funded. |
| In reality there are four categories for districts and three for sites. However, for the purposes of this RFP, proposals should use the three stated categories: scale up (includes aggressive), sustained and centrally funded, as noted on page 17. |
| 39 |
| Section C.5.2 (page 34) stipulates that grants will “have a maximum value of $300,000 per entity over the duration of the SAFE contract.” Could USAID kindly confirm that the selected implementing partner shall follow the established thresholds for grants to NGOs as outlined in the GUC authority provided by ADS 302.3.4.13 and in ADS 303? |
| Yes, ADS 302.3.4.13 and ADS 303 will be followed. |
| 40 |
| Section C.5.2 (page 34) states that the contractor may provide GUCs to sub-national units of the Zambian government and nongovernmental entities. Could USAID please confirm that it intends for the implementing partner to give other than solely in-kind assistance to Zambian government partners? Could USAID further confirm that it has conducted a project appraisal document and/or a determination and findings with the relevant government partners as outlined in the GUC authority in ADS 302.3.4.13? |
| USAID confirms its intention for the SAFE partner to give more than in-kind assistance to Zambian governmental partners. USAID has to complete the D&F prior to GUCs being issued to GRZ subnational units and the specific districts will not be identified prior to SAFE being awarded. Please note that the successful Contractor will need to undertake a further risk assessment of GRZ entities to receive GUCs. |
| 41 |
| With regard to the performance standard tables (pages 22-30), could USAID please provide guidance on the expected use of the incentives that the offerors are expected to include within the performance standard tables? |
| USAID amended the RFP to remove the Incentives column. |
| 42 |
| The “Quality Assurance Plan” columns in the Performance Standards Tables for Outcomes 1.1-1.3, Outcome 2.1, and Outcome 2.2 are blank, while the “Quality Assurance Plan” columns for the Performance Standards Tables for Outcomes 3.1 and Outcomes 4.1 and 4.2 say “To Be Determined at Time of Award”. Can USAID please clarify the difference in the requirements for these quality assurance plans? |
| There is no difference – all QAPs will be determined at time of award. USAID amended the RFP to reflect the update. |
| 43 |
| With regard to the quality assurance plans included in the performance standard tables (pages 22-30), does USAID expect both methods and indicators to be included in the quality assurance plans? |
| Yes, where appropriate. Please read the instructions under Sub Factor 1.4. USAID expects methods for every performance standard and indicators where appropriate. |
| 44 |
| Objective 2 states that Ministry of Health capacity building activities must be coordinated with the USAID Systems for Better Health contractor (page 24). In order for all potential offerors to have access to the same information, can USAID provide the work plan and/or the latest progress reports for this program? This will enable all potential offers to develop approaches and activities that are additive to the activities of the Systems for Better Health Project, and mitigate development of proposed approaches and activities that are redundant or contradictory. |
| Unfortunately, the Annual Work Plan has not yet been approved; however, a presentation that represents their work is included as an annex to this RFP. USAID will ensure that COR-accepted progress reports are posted on the DEC. |
| 45 |
| In cases where the Zambia Consolidated Guidelines for Treatment and Prevision of HIV Infections differs from the September 2015 WHO Guidelines on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, would USAID prefer offerors follow – the Zambia Consolidated Guidelines or the 2015 WHO guidelines? |
| The SAFE Contractor will be guided by the Zambia Consolidated Guidelines for Treatment and Provision of HIV Infections. Any modifications related to service delivery modifications are at the direction of the MOH. |
| 46 |
| On page 22 of the RFP USAID states “80 percent of HIV-positive clients in all SAFE districts to receive ART services by 2017”. To achieve this expected result will require significant project expenditures in the first year, as well as availability of ARVs. If there is uncertainty regarding the amount of funding that will be available during this period and/or the availability of ARVs in all SAFE districts (the RFP is silent on ARV availability and USAID’s programs in this area, such as SCMS), we respectfully suggest USAID consider adjusting down this target to reflect these potential realities. |
| All offerors should assume ARVs will be available in sufficient supply throughout the life of the project. USAID considers the targets set to be reasonable and achievable. |
| 47 |
| Please clarify when USAID expects “80 percent of HIV-positive clients in all SAFE districts to receive ART services”. Performance standards on page 22 of the RFP state two different end dates for this indicator: 2017 and 2020. |
| The 2017 target refers to the scale-up districts. The 2020 target refers to other supported districts. |
| 48 |
| Can USAID please clarify its definition of “material assistance” which is noted throughout the scope of work? |
| Material support includes but is not limited to provision of supplies, equipment, or in- kind services. USAID purposely included general statements to allow maximum flexibility by contractors to achieve the stated expected results. |
| 49 |
| It is stated on page 33, that CLIN 003 will begin in year 2 through year 5 and that the Contract must provide technical and material assistance to GRZ during the first and/or second year of the contract. Can USAID please clarify if this means the first two years of CLIN 003? |
| Offerors must keep in mind that CLINs 002 – 008 are for Optional Services. Every task that falls under CLIN 001 (all five objectives) MUST begin in Year 1 of the period of performance unless stated otherwise. The transition table outlines the timelines for which the Contractor will discontinue providing stated services and the GRZ will take over responsibility. All CLINs for Optional Services are meant to be USAID/Zambia’s “Plan B” just in case the GRZ is unable to take over the stated functions and we need the Contractor to continue performing tasks that the Contractor was already performing since Year 1 of the period of performance per CLIN 001 of the Statement of Work. This will mitigate the risk of USAID needing to negotiate an increase in the total estimated cost should the GRZ not be able to assume these responsibilities within USAID’s projected timeframe. No task listed under any option, including CLIN 006 is brand new. The CLIN is in response to this type of work as it relates to the G2G component as this type of work is to transition to the MOH at the end of year one, as stipulated on page 31. |
| 50 |
| Can USAID please clarify the anticipated duration in years and the overall anticipated amount of the grants program? |
| The grant program will have duration of five years will a total ceiling amount of $9,600,000. |
| 51 |
| In the performance standards for Outcomes 1.1 through 1.3 (page 22 of the RFP), it appears that the fifth and sixth standard both refer to scale up of ART in all SAFE districts. However, the fifth standard indicates that this should happen by 2017, while the sixth standard indicates 2020. Can USAID please confirm that we can delete standard five? |
| The 2017 target refers to the scale-up districts. The 2020 target refers to other supported districts. |
| 52 |
| Can USAID clarify to whom the Category A and B grants can go to? The description on page 35 implies that Category A grants are only through provincial health offices. Can Category B grants go to district health offices, health facilities, and/or civil society groups? |
| Category A and B grants can go to a variety of GRZ stakeholders. USAID amended the RFP to clarify that GUCs are only meant for GRZ subnational entities. |
| 53 |
| Objective 5.2 focuses on improving procurement operations at the MOH and the MSL. Can you please clarify if the procurement support is related solely to commodities and medical supplies or rather refers to the full range of services the MOH and MSL could procure? |
| Objective 5.2 refers to improving the procurement operations at MOH and MSL. Although SAFE is not the only vehicle for this support, it should be assumed that this extends to the full range of procurements that MOH and MSL undertake in a given year. |
| 54 |
| On page 13, the RFP states that the six USAID provinces comprises 57 districts, but the number of districts noted on in Table 1 on pages 18-19 is 58. Can you please clarify if the contractor should plan for 57 or 58 districts, and clarify which ones? |
| The contractor should plan for the 58 districts listed in Table 1 on pages 18 – 19. USAID amended the RFP to reflect the correct number of districts. |
| 55 |
| Is USAID able to share how many facilities will be targeted per district and/or by province? |
| In districts noted as scale-up, coverage of facilities is expected to be 100%, 176 in total. In districts noted as sustained, coverage is expected to be 50% for a total of 170 facilities. |
| 56 |
| We thank USAID for providing the Performance Standards tables to include in our proposal. Can you please provide additional guidance as to what information is expected in the "Quality Assurance Plan" and "incentives" columns? |
| USAID amended the RFP to remove the incentives column. |
| 57 |
| The map of districts provided on page 17 is not clear – can a better version be uploaded? |
| An improved version can be found on Google maps. |
| 58 |
| What is the current viral load monitoring capacity in Zambia, particularly in the provinces in which SAFE is to work to reach the 90-90-90 goals? |
| After confirming this information is available for public distribution, USAID will share this as an additional attachment to the RFP. |
| 59 |
| What are the current CD4 monitoring abilities in the districts that will participate in SAFE? Can a list of equipment by district be shared? |
| USAID does not possess a list of equipment by district. USAID encourages all Offerors to speak with the MOH to ascertain the equipment needs. Please note that CD 4 testing is less relevant than it has previously been. |
| 60 |
| How does USAID define TA to the PMO for Centrally Supported Districts? |
| USAID purposely used the broad term ‘technical assistance’. The Offeror should propose an approach to technical assistance that it deems will improve health outcomes in centrally supported districts. |
| 61 |
| What is the difference between the support to Scale up to Saturation and Aggressive Scale up districts? Note they are combined in the chart under Scale-up. |
| In reality there are four categories for districts and three for sites. However, for the purposes of this RFP, proposals should use the three stated categories: scale up, sustained and centrally funded, as noted on page 17. |
| 62 |
| In Objective 1.1, the RFP combines scale up and sustained in the implementation –districts. Other than the activities described on pgs 18-19 are there other differentiating factors? |
| Table 1 identifies the activities that define scale up and sustained districts. |
| 63 |
| Regarding Objective 2.3, how will the newly created functional patient tracking system align with Smart Care? Is that system not considered functional? |
| As with all systems, technology changes. The Offeror should work with the GRZ to develop a patient tracking system that aligns with the DHIS and a single patient registry. This could take numerous forms. |
| 64 |
| USAID canceled the SBCC procurement – is this contractor expected to take on SBCC activities or will there be another mechanism who will take the lead with the MOH on SBCC messages and plans? |
| No, the Offeror is not expected to undertake significant SBCC activities. The Offeror could be expected to lead limited IEC efforts as it relates to the clinical continuum of care. |
| 65 |
| Under Outcome 5.4 (transition key components of SAFE to the GRZ completed), can USAID please clarify what is meant by “transition completed”? Is it GRZ leading these activities without any technical/financial support from SAFE? With limited technical/financial support? Less technical/financial support? |
| Transition of activities is dynamic and will vary depending on the activity being transitioned. However, an activity will be considered transitioned if the GRZ is leading an activity with minimal technical support and no financial support outside of what USAID is funding directly through a G2G mechanism, or the contractor is funding through a GUC. |
| 66 |
| It is not clear if Zambia plans to adopt the new WHO treatment guidelines. If the government is planning to make the transition, what is the expected availability of sufficient volumes of ARVs and other commodities necessary to support such a change? |
| Offerors should assume a sufficient supply of ARV’s. |
Section H
| 67 |
| We have reviewed the proposed Scopes of Work for the key personnel. In a couple of instances we would like to propose some minor revisions, shifting a few key responsibilities from one key personnel position to another. Is this allowable? |
| Yes, Offerors may propose revised position descriptions; however the minimum qualifications are not negotiable. |
| 68 |
| Is there a minimum life of project value applicable to COP candidates like the DCOP role ($20 million in developing countries “involving multiple stakeholders and implementing partners” Page 55 and Page 56). If yes, please provide guidance on this figure. |
| There is not a minimum threshold amount for the COP candidates as Offerors often have a varied amalgamation of responsibilities between staff members. |
| 70 |
| The opening paragraph lists 935 as the Geographic Code, as does Section H.1 “Authorized Geographic Code”, but Section I.13 lists the Geographic Code as 937. Can USAID confirm the Authorized Geographic Code is 935? |
| USAID confirms the geographic code is 935. |
Section J
| 71 |
| Can USAID share the end-of-project (EOP) report and evaluation for ZPCT II and current quarterly reports for the ZPCT II Bridge? |
| These should be available in the Development Experience Clearinghouse now. |
| 72 |
| Can the MOH policy on task shifting for HIV services be shared? |
| The Zambia MOH National Human Resources for Health Strategic Plan 2011 – 2015 may be found at: http://www.moh.gov.zm/docs/hrsp.pdf. |
| 73 |
| Can the most recent SIMS guidance be shared? |
| The most recent SIMS guidance is not available for public distribution at this time. Should USAID confirm that alternate, useful information is available, it will be shared in a subsequent amendment. |
Section L
| 74 |
| Page 120 of the RFP provides guidance on the page length of the response which requires clarification. In the second paragraph it clearly states that the technical proposal narrative, including an executive summary, may not exceed 20 pages. In the language under Factor 1, it states that the technical narrative may not exceed 35 pages. |
| The proposal narrative limit is 35 pages. Section L7 has been amended to correct the language. |
| 75 |
| Also, confirm whether the 15 pages allocated for the Management Approach is in addition to those allocated for the technical approach. |
| Yes the 15 pages for the Management approach is in addition to those allocated for the technical approach. |
| 76 |
| Lastly, the narrative under Sub Factor 1.2 does not correspond to the section heading. It also provides a different page limit for the Monitoring and Evaluation plan (10 pages) than is found under Sub Factor 1.4 (20 pages). |
| USAID amended the RFP to include the correct language. |
| 77 |
| On page 122, the RFP asks for PPIs only for projects with a budget of more than $100,000,000. Can we submit PPIs for budgets that have a similar scope of work but with a lower budget ceiling? |
| Offerors should submit information about the most relevant contracts and/or cooperative agreements that Offerors have performed within the last three years. While USAID considers budgets worth $100M or more the most relevant, it does not preclude Offerors from submitting information about awards performed at dollar thresholds less than $100M. |
| 78 |
| The text on page 121 under the details for Sub-factor 1.2, Technical Approach seems to be about the M&E plan, not the technical approach for capacity building. Can USAID please clarify and/or share the corrected text? |
| USAID amended the RFP to include the correct language. |
| 79 |
| The budget line items provided in the budget template differ from those listed in Section L8 of the RFP (p.123-124). Specifically, the RFP includes Participant Training and consultants whereas the template does not. Can USAID please clarify which budget line items should be included? |
| Participant Training Costs should be a subline item under Other Direct Costs and Offerors can add Consultants as a separate line item in the budget. |
| 80 |
| Can USAID please confirm that the cancellation ceilings should be the annual budgets for each year cited plus additional close-out costs if cancelled in that year? |
| The Offerors are supposed to propose cancellation ceilings. USAID amended the solicitation to add specific instructions. |
| 81 |
| Can USAID please confirm that the cost proposal can be submitted in more than two files (e.g. budget notes in Word, budget in Excel, and additional documents such as NICRA in PDF). |
| Offerors must limit the cost proposal submission to two files: 1 MS EXCEL file and 1 PDF file. USAID amended the RFP to reflect this requirement. |
| 82 |
| Section L.7 (page 120) allocates pages to the technical proposal under the General Instructions and Factor 1. Could USAID kindly confirm that Factor 1 – Strategic and Technical Approach - should be no more than 35 pages and that Factor 2 – Management Approach - should be no more than 15 pages? |
| USAID confirms that Factor 1 Strategic Approach should be no more than 35 pages and Factor 2 Management approach should be no more than 15 pages. |
| 83 |
| Section L.7 Factor 2.1 (page 121) asks for an organogram with projected positions (key and non-key), level of effort, and reporting relationships. Would USAID be amenable to excluding organograms and an organization LOE table from the page count or placing them as an annex to the technical proposal? |
| Yes. USAID confirms that the organogram is excluded from the page count as is the organization LOE table. However, both pieces of information should not exceed four pages total. |
| 84 |
| Section L.7 Factor 1.2 (page 121) states that a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan should be no more than 10 pages. However, Section L.7 Factor 1.4 indicates that the plan should be no more than 20 pages. Could USAID kindly confirm that the monitoring and evaluation plan should be no more than 20 pages? |
| USAID amended the RFP to include the correct language in Factor 1.2. |
| 85 |
| Section L.8 (pg. 126) lists the current USAID Contractor Salary Threshold as $168,700 but as of January 1, 2016, the threshold was updated to $170,400. Could USAID please confirm that the revised threshold should be applied to this program? |
| The revised Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) of $170,400 should be applied as part of this program. |
| 86 |
| On page 121, both Sub Factors 1.2 and 1.4 refer to a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan. Sub Factor 1.2 indicates 10 pages whereas Sub Factor 1.4 indicates 20 pages for the Annex. Please confirm the number of pages for the monitoring and evaluation plan annex. |
| USAID amended the RFP to include the correct language in Factor 1.2. |
| 87 |
| Do major subcontractors need to submit certifications, travel and personnel policies, and evidence of responsibility or are these documents only needed from the prime? |
| Major subcontractors need to submit certifications and travel and personnel policies. USAID amended Section L.9 of the RFP. |
| 88 |
| Please clarify what is considered a major subcontractor. On page 123 it is a subcontractor who is budgeted for 20% of the proposed cost of the award and on page 127 the RFP states 15%. |
| The threshold for a major subcontract is purposely different –for past performance it is 20% or more per guidance from USAID/Washington and for the cost application it is 15% or more. |
| 89 |
| On page 120, under “General Instructions,” the RFP says that the page limit for the technical proposal is twenty pages. However, further down the page, under “Technical Proposal Narrative,” the RFP says that the offeror must submit a technical proposal of no more than 35 pages. Could USAID please clarify page limits for the technical proposal narrative, and include the page limits for each section (e.g. technical approach, management approach, etc.? |
| USAID confirms that Factor 1 Strategic Approach should be no more than 35 pages and Factor 2 Management approach should be no more than 15 pages. Section L7 has been amended to correct the language. |
| 90 |
| No Performance Standards are indicated for Outcome 2.3 on pages 26 - 27. Should offerors develop their own indicators for this performance area? |
| Because of the dynamic nature of technology, yes Offerors should propose their own performance standards. Please see the answer to Question 63. |
| 91 |
| On page 121, Sub Factor 1.2 and Sub Factor 1.4 contain very similar language, and the language in Sub Factor 1.2 seems incongruous with its associated heading. Is this an error? |
| Yes, USAID amended the RFP to add the correct language to Subfactor 1.2 |
| 92 |
| On page 126 USAID lists the Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) as $168,700. Can USAID confirm that the 2016 Adjustments to CST, increasing the limit to $170,400 for agencies without a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System, can be used? |
| The revised Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) of $170,400 should be applied as part of this program. |
| 93 |
| If a contractor has received previous funding from USAID is it necessary to submit copies of personnel and travel policies? |
| Yes |
| 94 |
| Will letters of support be accepted by USAID? |
| No. |
| 95 |
| On Page 122 under Past Performance, USAID has requested that offeror and subcontractors submit PPI Data Sheets for relevant contracts with total budgets worth $100M or more. We respectfully request that the dollar value for defining relevant size be reduced. |
| Offerors should submit information about the most relevant contracts and/or cooperative agreements that Offerors have performed within the last three years. While USAID considers budgets worth $100M or more the most relevant, it does not preclude Offerors from submitting information about awards performed at dollar thresholds less than $100M. |
| 96 |
| Page 16, Attachment J.4: Past Performance Information Data Sheet does not include a row for offerors to write the skills and expertise required, as USAID has requested on page 122, Section L.7 Factor 3 (a). |
Would USAID please provide an updated PPI Data Sheet to offerors or confirm that this information can be included in number 5 of the PPI Data Sheet?
Offerors should discuss the skills and expertise required in Block 5 of the PPI Data Sheet.
| 97 |
| USAID has requested that offerors submit their PPI Data Sheets 14 calendar days prior to the proposal due date (January 25). Given that we have questions related to the past performance instructions, would USAID kindly consider allowing offerors to submit PPI Data Sheets with the technical proposal on February 8? |
| No, PPI Data Sheets are due January 25. This is to help prevent further delays in the award of the major contract. |
| 98 |
| Page 120 Section L.7 allows for the font within figures and tables to be TNR 10 pt font. Would USAID kindly allow for smaller font (as long as it is legible) for graphics? |
| 8 pt Times New Roman font is acceptable for graphics only. |
| 99 |
| Page 120, Section L.7 of the RFP states that the length of the technical proposal (excluding cover pages, table of contents, acronym list and annexes) is both 20 and 35 pages. Please confirm that the page limit for the technical proposal (excluding cover pages, table of contents, acronym list and annexes) is 35 pages. |
| USAID confirms that Factor 1 Strategic Approach should be no more than 35 pages and Factor 2 Management approach should be no more than 15 pages. Section L7 has been amended to correct the language. |
| 100 |
| Page 121, Section L.7 of the RFP Sub Factor 1.2 states that the monitoring and evaluation plan must not exceed 10 pages. Page 121, Section L.7 Sub factor 1.4 states that the monitoring and evaluation plan must not exceed 20 pages. We have the following related questions: |
a. Please confirm that the monitoring and evaluation plan must not exceed 20 pages.
b. Does this page limit include tables such as the tables in Section C 4.3 Tasks, which are lengthy?
a. Language for subfactor 1.2 was corrected. The monitoring and evaluation plan must not exceed 20 pages.
b. USAID amended the RFP to allow 25 pages for the Monitoring & Evaluation Plan.
| 101 |
| Page 121 states that Factor 2 Management Approach must not exceed 15 pages. Please confirm that this is in addition to the page limit for Factor 1 Strategic and Technical Approach. |
| This is in addition to the page limit for Factor 1, Strategic and Technical approach. |
| 102 |
| In Section L, the instructions for Sub Factor’s 1.2 and 1.4 seem to contradict each other. Could USAID revise the instructions for Sub Factor 1.2 that align with the evaluation criteria for that sub factor? |
| USAID amended the RFP to add the correct language to Subfactor 1.2 |
| On page 4, the table for CLIN 003 Optional Services - Roll out new clinical policies and guidelines Manage Routine Supervision and Mentoring Programs seems to be mislabelled. Should it read only “Roll out new clinical policies and guidelines”? |
| Yes, it should only read “Roll out new clinical policies and guidelines”? |
USAID amended the RFP to correct this.
| 104 |
| On page 4, CLIN 003 appears to include the activities previously mentioned in CLIN 002. Was this USAID’s intent, or should CLIN 003 focus solely on rolling out new clinical policies and guidelines? |
| Yes, it should only read “Roll out new clinical policies and guidelines”? |
USAID amended the RFP to correct this.
| 105 |
| Section B.4 (page 3) provides a total of $9,600,000 for Grants under contract (GUC). However, there are no amounts included for the GUC under CLINs 2-8. Could USAID please confirm that the total GUC component for this program is $9.6 million? |
| The total GUC component for this program is $9.6M assuming the G2G agreements are in place on time as per the transition table in the Statement of Work. |
| 106 |
| Section B.9 (pages 7-8) lists the cancellation date for Contract Year 5 as June 1, 2020. Could USAID please clarify if the cancellation date for Contract Year 5 should be revised to June 1, 2021? |
| The cancellation date for Contract Year 5 should be June 1, 2020 as June 1, 2021 is the expected end date of the Period of Performance. |
| 107 |
| Can USAID clarify whether there is a budget amount set aside for renovations in the contract? |
| Offerors should estimate $15 million over the life of the project for equipment and infrastructure modification to support project needs. |
| 108 |
| On page 8 can USAID confirm that the cancellation date for Contract Year 5 should be June 1, 2021 and not June 1, 2020? |
| The cancellation date for Contract Year 5 should be June 1, 2020 as June 1, 2021 is the expected end date of the Period of Performance. |
| 109 |
| Given that CLIN 001 is considered non-severable and the Government only has funding for two years, does the $9,600,000 reference the GUCs budget line item ceiling for the 1st 2 years or for all five years? |
| For all five years as USAID anticipates receiving funding for five years. |
| 110 |
| Should we expect the cancellation ceiling be identified in this solicitation? Note that according to FAR 71.106-2 Solicitations: |
Solicitations for multiyear contracts shall reflect all the factors to be considered for evaluation, specifically including the following: (a) The requirements, by item of supply or service, for the— (1) First program year; and (2) Multiyear contract including the requirements for each program year. (b) Criteria for comparing the lowest evaluated submission on the first program year requirements to the lowest evaluated submission on the multiyear requirements. (c) A provision that, if the Government determines before award that only the first program year requirements are needed, the Government’s evaluation of the price or estimated cost and fee shall consider only the first year. (d) A provision specifying a separate cancellation ceiling (on a percentage or dollar basis) and dates applicable to each program year subject to a cancellation (see 17.106–1 (c) and (d)). (e) A statement that award will not be made on less than the first program year requirements. (f) The Government’s administrative costs of annual contracting may be used as a factor in the evaluation only if they can be reasonably established and are stated in the solicitation. (g) The cancellation ceiling shall not be an evaluation factor.
USAID has amended the RFP to reflect cancellation ceilings per FAR 17.106-2
