Attachment_J.16_SUN_TA_Q&A.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.16– QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

GENERAL TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

Question 1: How will the methodologies utilized by the Learning and Evaluation contract be reviewed and approved by appropriate experts, and how will the results be shared with implementers?

USAID Response: The Learning and Evaluation contract will use standard global anthropometric measurements for stunting which have been validated in Zambia. The proposed methodology will be reviewed by the SUN Steering Committee and other relevant stakeholders and approved by USAID.

Question 2: Will USAID adjust targets for reductions in stunting and assessment of the contractor’s performance if districts choose not to implement activities off the menu that are required to affect such reductions? If not, how will these discrepancies be accounted for?

USAID Response: No. The role of SUN TA is to work with districts to ensure they implement evidence-based practices. Should a SUN district refuse to implement activities, which we believe is unlikely, USAID will revisit.

Question 3: As the implementation of SUN TA activities are closely linked to the next phase of the DFID pooled multi-donor SUN Fund, how will SUN TA and SUN Learning be synchronized?

USAID Response: USAID expects to award both activities around the same time. The three procurements have been closely aligned during the procurement process.

Question 4: Zambia was graduated from USAID family planning programs yet there are many

GRZ legislative, policy, and program restrictions prohibiting access of adolescents to modern contraception. What is USAID’s vision for family planning activities under SUN TA, and specifically how can issues related to adolescent pregnancy be addressed in this context?

USAID Response: Zambia has an active family planning program supported by USAID and other donors. Yes, there are barriers to family planning and USAID is interested in hearing how offerors, in this context, would propose to overcome them.

Question 5: Does USAID require that SUN TA will support the NFNC to strengthen policy dialogue with the GRZ to become more nutrition-sensitive?

USAID Response: Yes.

Question 6: The RFP describes administrative, managerial and reporting relationships between the SUN TA and the group comprised of the SUN Fund Steering Committee, the

NFNC and the SUN Fund Manager, but is silent on the issue of technical and programmatic

SUN TA Q&A

SOL-611-17-000005

Attachment J.16 direction and coordination that is required to achieve the results of reduced stunting. Will

USAID please describe the roles for, and direction of, technical and programmatic direction and coordination?

USAID Response: Please review the roles and responsibilities in Section C. SUN TA will provide technical and programmatic direction through those administrative, managerial and reporting relationships.

Question 7: If data is collected at the district level for SUN Learning, why not also analyze this at the district level to make comparisons on the effectiveness of SUN TA and associated menu interventions? Without this type of information, it will be difficult to determine the causal factors of success and failure for individual programs and menu items.

USAID Response: USAID expects some data to be analyzed at the district level but does not expect the baseline, midline, and/or endline to be powered to provide a reliable prevalence of stunting at the district-level across 30 districts.

Question 8: Although the intended beneficiaries are the 1,000 Days would USAID also like

SUN TA to support school-based WASH activities?

USAID Response: Given that the target is children under two, USAID would like offerors to propose appropriate interventions.

Question 9: Will the selected contractor be allowed to use any portion of project funding for the procurement of commodities and services?

USAID Response: Please see “direct implementation” section of the PBWS in Section C

(Implementation Task 5).

Question 10: Does USAID anticipate the equitable distribution of SUN TA resources across each of the 30 districts, or will this assistance be weighted according to SUN Fund complementary resources to either fully support proportionately larger programs, or inversely to compensate for shortfalls?

USAID Response: TA will be need-based under the activity.

Question 11: For purposes of planning for the thorough and comprehensive delivery of technical assistance and training across all of the 30 SUN TA districts, can USAID provide information on their geographical distribution?

USAID Response: Please see list of the 30 proposed SUN districts from NFNC now attached in Section J.

Question 12: Will USAID please provide clarification on the Quality Assurance Surveillance

Plan? Should bidders consider this as similar to a program monitoring plan, or are their significant differences in approach or methodology?

USAID Response: The term “program monitoring plan” does not appear within the solicitation and is not defined within this question; therefore, USAID is only able to reference back to Section L/F/M as to the requirements of a QASP.

Question 13: There is no mention of the overarching Joint Financing Agreement (JFA) between GRZ and Cooperating Partners (CPs) to support the nutrition program in the country. Is this an omission? Is USAID among the CPs to sign the JFA?

USAID Response: CPs and the GRZ will sign a JFA to govern oversight of the SUN Fund within the SUN Program. USAID has written a letter of support which will be an attachment to the final JFA.

Question 14: Can USAID please provide an update on the status of the Zambia Nutrition

Information System and how the roll out of this system should impact work done under/linkages to IR7?

USAID Response: The GRZ has not made a final determination on the plans for a Zambia

Nutrition Information System. Please see the recently disseminated scoping report for ZamNIS which is attached in Section J.

Question 15: Would you please confirm that USAID will use the following Feed the Future results report definition/calculation for stunting reduction for this project: “The percent change in impact indicator values for poverty and stunting, which captures the proportional change from the baseline value, not the percentage point change. Data represent populations in the geographic areas where Feed the Future concentrates all or most of its efforts…”

USAID Response: USAID will maintain standard Feed the Future indicators. Should USAID need the data presented in an alternate format, it will be decided in the finalization of the monitoring, coordination, and communication plan.

Question 16: Though the technical IRs are the same as they were in the last RFI, the solicitation seems to have a much bigger emphasis on implementation at the district level. Can

USAID clarify as to how it envisions this in partnership with NFNC?

USAID Response: Based on global experience and the evaluation of SUN 1.0, the SUN

Program recognizes that a reduction in stunting will require layering of high impact interventions at the household level which requires a decentralized implementation approach.

NFNC oversees the district and ward nutrition committees which provide the most direct link to this level of implementation.

Question 17: How will USAID measure the annual two percentage point reduction? Would it be better to link the fee to the midline and endline surveys?

USAID Response: The fee is linked to results from the midline and endline surveys and the measurement will be done by the parallel SUN Learning and Evaluation contract.

Question 18: Would USAID consider changing the target group for stunting reduction from younger than two to the industry standard of younger than five, which still allows for retaining the emphasis for activities on the 1,000 Most Critical Days? For example, both USAID’s Multi-

Sectoral Nutrition Strategy and the World Health Organization follow this standard.

Additionally, the requirement of measuring a reduction in children younger than two years will mean that some of children who participated in and benefited from SUN TA will not be fully captured and considered part of the success of the activity in the midterm and endline surveys.

USAID Response: No. The Demographic and Health Survey will continue to capture stunting under five. The focus of SUN is specifically on children under two since that is the most critical period.

Question 19: Will USAID please indicate whether traditional authorities (chiefs and chiefdoms) are considered government entities by USAID for grant purposes?

USAID Response: The purpose of this question is not clear. Traditional authorities will be important stakeholders under SUN. In the Zambian context, chiefs and chiefdoms are not considered government entities.

Question 20: During the Industry Day presentation, USAID and the NFNC representative made reference to a lack of clarity around phasing and scale-up beyond the initial 30 districts, and the timeframe by which the contractor would be expected to undertake such a scale up.

Can USAID please provide the total number of districts and their phasing that will be covered under the SUN TA period of performance for the purposes of the procurement in order to facilitate comparable evaluation of offerors’ proposals?

USAID Response: At a minimum, SUN TA must work in the original 14 plus 8 new districts in the first year with the remaining 8 added in the second year. Offerors will no be prohibited from working in all 30 from the start of the contract. The list of the 30 districts is in Section J.

Question 21: USAID wisely included an option-year structure as a way to evaluate whether interventions are producing results. However, a large proportion of the impact from the 1,000

Most Critical Days interventions will not be detected until after the first 1,000 days period, between the ages of 2 and 5 when the prevalence of stunting is highest. If the focus of evaluations is only on children under 2, the evaluations will miss the impact of important interventions, and USAID may halt or disincentive activities that are, in fact, working. Not capturing all the impact of SUN TA also could undermine interest in and future funding for addressing malnutrition in Zambia by the Government of Zambia, donor community, and other funders.

In addition, a focus on under 2s would not require a doubling of previous progress, as stated during Industry Day, but a quadrupling. Two percentage points a year is double the one percentage point a year reduction attained for children under 5 between 2001/2 and 2013/14.

But the reduction for under 2s has been only 0.50 percentage points per year, as indicated in the ZDHS data detailed below.

Given this information, could USAID kindly reconsider measuring and evaluating the performance and impact of SUN TA activities on children under 2 years of age by measuring impact in all children who are exposed to the program, including children 3-5 years of age?

Stunting in Zambia

2001/2 2013/14 Percentage

Point Change Over the

Period

Percentage

Point Change per Year

% Change

Over the Period

0-2 years 43% 37% 6 0.5 14%¯

2-5 years 60% 38% 22 1.83 37%¯

0-5 years 53% 40% 13 1.08 25%¯

Source: ZDHS, 2001/2 and 2013/14 (figures rounded). Note that figures for 0-2 years and 2-5 years in 2001/2 were calculated using the WHO Child Growth Database for the ZDHS 2001/2.

WHO has recalculated all surveys using the WHO Child Growth Standard.

USAID Response: Stunting in Zambia peaks around 24 months. USAID will not consider changing the target group.

Question 22: Will USAID consider aligning the reporting requirements of this contract with the annual planning and budgeting cycle of the GRZ line ministries when the contract is awarded?

USAID Response: The reporting requirements are aligned with the SUN Program and - with the exception of USAID-specific reporting requirements - are tied to the GRZ calendar year.

See Section F.5.1.

Question 23: It is noted that there are slight differences between the RFP and the MCDP II document related livelihoods and nutrition sensitive agriculture. For example, increased income and resilience of poor households is mentioned as a key indicator in the RFP, yet in the MCDP

II increasing household income and creating market linkages are not mentioned. Can USAID please advise on how Offerors should address any differences between the RFP and the MCDP

II document?

USAID Response: The MCDP does not include every related intervention in the areas of health and nutrition-sensitive programming. As technical experts, the offerors must put forth the highest impact interventions to reduce stunting and related poverty indicators. The SUN

Program contributes to the MCDP but is not the sole program under MCDP.

GENERAL CONTRACTING QUESTIONS

Question 1: In the USAID Business Forecast last updated on November 20, 2017, the anticipated start date is July 31, 2017. Can USAID please confirm the Offeror should use this as the contract start date?

USAID Response: The anticipated award released date is remains July 31, 2018. Section L.8 has been updated to reflect this assumption for all offerors.

Question 2: Can contractors assume that USAID will obtain a waiver for DBA for Zambia

CCNs or should contractors include DBA costs for CCN and TCN staff in the budget?

USAID Response: Offerors are to budget for DBA, where applicable, unless the offeror is to request an exception for any class of employee.

Question 3: Do offerors have a VAT exemption?

USAID Response: Yes, the successful offeror will be VAT exempt.

Question 4: Will USAID provide any government furnished properties for this activity?

USAID Response: No GFP is currently envisioned for this activity. If this changes, the offeror’s will be notified within due time.

SECTION B

Question 1: Page 3, 4 and 7: Section B.3 (b); lists the budget based on cost elements.

However, B.5 calls for a Task Budget that will be treated as CLINs. Reading the description of the CLINs, it appears they are just milestones for deliverables.

Which budget shall be the prevailing contract budget? We respectfully feel that asking for two budgets without a clear added value to the budget requested in Section B.5. CLINs structure is not fungible and difficult to manage without formal contract modification. If USAID wants to associate costs to each task, the work plan can allocate such cost without the need to impose it in the contract. Moreover, with this fixed fee complex structure, it will be very difficult to track and monitor the fee using Section B.5 budget. We respectfully request the removal of Section

B.5 in its entirety.

USAID Response: The Task budget is meant to give USAID an understanding of how much it will cost the offeror to complete a given task during inception and implementation phases.

This will feed into the detailed budget by description of cost line items and summarized as an overall budget per cost category such as Salaries, Fringe, Equipment etc. Therefore, offerors are expected to submit the budget as outlined in section B.3 and B.5. The prevailing budget is

B.3.

Question 2: Page 7, Section B.5 of the RFP demonstrates the Task Budget by CLINS. We ask that USAID kindly remove the requirement for task-based budgeting and financial reporting.

Having 10 CLINS in the budget, in addition to 7 project years, could easily lead to budget volumes consisting of hundreds of pages.

USAID Response: Please see above response.

Question 3: Page. 4 Section B.3; is the direct implementation fund to be reflected as a lump sum in the cost proposal as a non-labor cost? Or is it a CLIN like any other that needs to be broken out by direct labor, subcontracts/grants, and other direct costs during implementation?

Can USAID provide the definition of “Direct Implementation”?

a) Are grants included in this figure?

b) If yes, could USAID kindly provide a breakout for the grants since some offerors have a different indirect rate application for grants?

USAID Response: USAID has updated Section B.3 and B.5 to pull out the Grants Under

Contract Amounts in accordance with Section H and Direct Implementation. Additional language has been added to section L.82 to further describe this relationship.

Question 4: Page 7, Section B.5; Would USAID confirm that the pool of funds under

CLIN/Task 9 “Direct implantation Executed” is inclusive of any applicable indirect costs and fee?

As stated in the FAR 15.404-4 section on Profit, “fee may vary from negotiated profit or fee, because of such factors as efficiency of performance, incurrence of costs the Government does not recognize as allowable, and the contract type.” As indicated here this fee is used to manage risk and disallowed costs. The current design of tables B.4 and B.5 do not allow contractors to collect fee at a cadence that is commensurate with their costs. For example, that contractor will only be able to capture fee in modest amounts two times in years 2 and 3 of the program.

Additionally, the contractor will collect nearly half of the base period base fee (75% of total fee) in year one of the program. This forces the contractors to take on additional risk and perhaps self-finance certain disallowed costs. For these reasons, is USAID amenable to the contractor tailoring sections B.4 and B.5 to allow for more periods of fee collection and or the proposal of additional deliverables commensurate with their costs and ongoing risks related to project implementation?

USAID Response: USAID has updated Section B.3 and B.5 to pull out the Grants Under

Contract Amounts in accordance with Section H and Direct Implementation. Additional language has been added to section L.82 to further describe this relationship.

USAID respectfully disagrees with the comment on “modest fee amounts” as the fee is front loaded within the first year to represent 37.5% which will allow the contractor manage performance risk as described within the question.

Question 5: Page 4, Section B.3; the summary budget template does not include an

Allowances line item. Would USAID please confirm that AIDAR allowances and post differentials should be budgeted as part of Other Direct Costs?

USAID Response: Yes, allowances may be listed under Fringe or ODC’s.

Question 6: Page 5 Section B.4 (b) of the RFP states that, “The remaining twenty-five (25) percent of the fixed fee will be allocated based on the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting among children under-two years of age”. It’s also clear throughout the RFP that

USAID has placed high importance on gender equality and women’s empowerment knowing that achievements in these areas will contribute to further reductions in stunting beyond the life of award. We ask that USAID please consider an indicator of change in gender dynamics placed at the same level of importance as stunting reduction

USAID Response: Offerors are welcome to present proposed indicators.

Question 7: Page 5, Section B.4.(b) States that; 25 percent of the fixed fee will be allocated based on the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting across the 30 districts. Is the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting limited to the 30 target districts or will the target geographic area expand in out years or option years?

USAID Response: SUN TA will work in 30 districts during the base period and the 30 will remain consistent across the baseline, midline, and endline. If any geographic scope increases through the life of the contract, the fee structure will be negotiated accordingly.

Question 8: Page 5, Section B.4, USAID provides information regarding the payment of Fixed

Fee – FAR 52.216-8 (Jun 2011). While the payment of fee upon deliverable (technical assistance) would seem more appropriate to a CPFF Term-type contract, we are more concerned about the payment of 25 percent of the fixed-fee by outcome (a reduction in stunting) and not by deliverable (technical assistance). For this scenario, an incentive contract such as a Cost Plus Award Fee-type contract would perhaps be more suitable, per FAR Subpart

16.401. Furthermore, the contractor ultimately providing this technical assistance will in no way have full control over the outcome of stunting. We therefore request the following considerations:

a) Can USAID reconsider either the contract type or the partial payment of fee based upon outcomes, as the current requirements would appear to be inconsistent with FAR

Subpart 16.3/16.4?

b) As a proportion of the overall fixed fee percentage paid to the Offeror will be determined by the percentage point reduction in stunting from the baseline to the midline, a baseline for Y1 might not be completed within the first year. Would the USAID consider prorating the fee schedule for the first year? As an alternative, would USAID consider percentage points reduction from what is currently listed in targeted districts in the

Demographic Health Survey as an initial baseline measurement?

USAID Response: The contract type will remain unchanged and the fee structure has taken into account partial payment of fee (25%) based upon the outcome (reduction in stunting) while the remaining 75% of fee is based upon the TA and deliverables. The ultimate deliverable of this contract in line with SUN 2.0 is a reduction in stunting and all mechanisms; while independent, are responsible for this deliverable.

Question 9: Page 5, Section B.4; What are EMMP related deliverables in the OP years and why are the %’s so much higher?

USAID Response: Please refer to Sections C, F, and H for the environmental and subsequent EMMP requirements. The fee is higher in the OP to ensure the contractor takes environmental impacts through the life of the award as a priority as direct implementation may require additional mitigation measures that are currently unforeseen.

Question 10: Page 5, Section B.4 ties a significant amount of fee to deliverables outside the manageable control of the Contractor. Specifically, Deliverable 10, “SUN Annual District Work Plans submitted and approved by the SUN Steering Committee,” and Deliverable 6, “SUN

Activity “Menu” approved by NFNC.” The Steering Committee is composed of NFNC, line ministries, cooperating partners, the UN and civil society organizations. While we recognize that the District Work Plans and Activity “Menu” are critical, our experience in managing delivery of project results with joint approvals leads us to anticipate challenges, delays, and numerous discussions in getting these parties to agree. Would USAID consider associating the fee with approval of deliverables by USAID, rather than by the NFNC and Steering Committee?

The contract is between USAID and the contractor and there is no legal or contractual relationship between the contractor and NFNC or the Steering Committee.

USAID Response: The deliverables reflect the critical need for SUN TA to work closely with the Steering Committee and NFNC and to ensure deliverables are appropriately cleared, vetted, and owned. Without the steering committee approval, the TA provided will not be able to implement any activities within the districts; therefore, it is reasonable to associate the

“acceptance” as a deliverable for successful performance. Please also note, that Section B.4 has been updated to reflect F.5.11.

Question 11: Page 5/6, Section B.4, Payment of Fixed Fee: Section B.4; breaks the fee into two components, the first is 75% which payable upon the successful delivery of the deliverables listed in the table mentioned in B.4.(a). The remainder (25%) of the fixed fee will be allocated on the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting among children under-two years of age across the 30 target districts. In page 6, there is a table that demonstrates the percentage point change from the baseline to midline. The second and third columns for the base and the two option periods listed the percentage and dollars that will be proportion of the “overall

Fixed Fee.”

Please confirm that the term “overall Fixed Fee” refers only to the 25% of the payable fee associated with the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting among children under-two years of age across the 30 target districts and not the Contract overall fixed fee.

USAID Response: The methodology utilized is demonstrating a 75/25 split to equal 100% fee

(overall fee). The table(s) are set up to take the “overall” fee and associating them across the two tables. Therefore, the offeror will interpret the overall fixed fee in the second table to show the funding allocation for the 25% of the 100% allocation. USAID confirms that the

“overall fixed fee” refers only to the 25% (of the overall 100%) of the payable fee associated with the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting among children under-two years of age across the 30 target districts.

Question 12: Page 5-6, Section B.4 (b); states; “The remaining twenty-five (25) percent of the fixed fee will be allocated based on the percentage point change in prevalence of stunting among children under-two years of age across the 30 target districts.” Section M.2.2 (a), Factors for Evaluation (pg. 162), states “The offeror’s proposed activity menu demonstrates a clear understanding of the SUN 2.0 program by integrating evidence-based activities to reduce stunting…The menu will be evaluated based on the…likelihood to which the package of interventions (2-5 interventions in governance, agriculture, health including family planning, nutrition, WASH, early childhood development and behavior change) would lead to a reduction in stunting.”

Based on the recent findings of WASH Benefits and SHINE that there are no linkages found between WASH and stunting, how will USAID evaluate the proposed WASH interventions?

USAID Response: Offerors should propose the most cost-effective and evidence-based interventions. WASH activities do not preclude work to address environmental enteropathy and other sanitation issues linked to stunting.

Question 13: Page 6 Section B.4. (b)(1) States; that the contracting officer will prorate the fee schedule based on the timeline of the baseline, which will be conducted by an external party.

Should the baseline be delayed, can USAID kindly elaborate on how the fee schedule will be prorated? For example, will the “percentage point reduced stunting” columns of the table found on page 6 of the RFP be adjusted?

USAID Response: Yes, the tables would be adjusted based on the timing and the implications of what can be achieved within the remaining timeline.

Question 14: Page 7, Section B.5; the tasks listed in section B.5 differ from those listed in

Section C (beginning on page 20). While the Inception tasks are identical, five Implementation tasks are listed in Section B.5, and seven tasks in Section C.11.2. Four of the tasks in each section are consistent. However, Task 1 in Section B.5 is “Intervention Plans for each SUN

District Completed,” while Task 1 in Section C.11.2 is “Annual Work Plan” and Task 7 in

Section C.11.2 is “Monitoring.” Would USAID please clarify the list of tasks in both Section B and Section C?

USAID Response: The Task budget has been updated to reflect Section C, Implementation

Phase. Please note that the Adaptive Management and Monitoring are interrelated and kept together in the Task Budget intentionally.

Question 15: Page 8, Section B.6; includes different cancellation dates listed in section F.2, namely for the optional years. Will USAID please clarify this?

USAID Response: Multi-year Contracting is a clause in the FAR that allows for a contractor to be paid a percentage in an event that the contract is cancelled before the end date. The option years and the cancellation dates in B.4 are not directly correlated. Please refer to FAR

17.101.

Question 16: Page 8 Section B.7 Indirect Costs; The solicitation requested to propose an

Overhead and G&A Ceiling percentage. As this is a 7-year project, there are major changes in development industry that cannot be forecasted for the coming 7 years that may affect the indirect cost. Imposing a ceiling on the contractor’s indirect rates is not supported by any regulations. It is always the personal preference of the Contracting Officer in charge of the solicitation. While we recognize and understand the Contracting Officer’s endeavor to protect the Government interest from the soaring of indirect costs, the unrecovered indirect costs of a contractor due to ceilings imposed on its indirect is unhealthy practice.

a) We respectfully request the removal of ceiling rates percentages from Section B.7.

b) If USAID preference is to keep a ceiling, we respectfully request that the ceiling is expressed as not-to-exceed dollar amount pool for the entire indirect costs covering the performance period of the contract. This approach will continue protecting the Government interest if for any reason the indirect cost of the contractor soared up. It will also allow the contractor to recover its approved indirect rates not to exceed the indirect dollar amount pool. Also, it provides a fair balanced two ways relationship as the contractor will benefit from the cost savings in one of the indirect cost elements to offset any cost overrun in another. The current setup works only for the Government who will benefit from the reduction of one element and the contractor will be hit by the ceiling imposed on that rate.

USAID Response: The Contracting Officer recognizes the challenges with this request and offers to negotiate; through the life of the contract, the expressed ceiling amounts. Additional language has been added under the first “Note” of this Section B.7.

Question 17: Page 9 Section B.7; major subcontractors are defined as those whose proposed costs exceed 20 percent of the proposed total cost or perform a key element of the performance based work statement (PBWS). Can USAID please define what it means to

“perform a key element of the PBWS”?

USAID Response: The offeror is to describe its’ classification of a major subcontractor as each offeror may place greater emphasis on section(s) of the PBWS based within their technical approach, and possibly subbing such sections out.

SECTION C

Question 1: Page 11, section C.3; does USAID expect offerors to include a theory of change in proposals? If so, can USAID kindly confirm that this may be submitted as an annex and not counted towards the page limits for the technical volume?

USAID Response: A theory of change has not been mandated as part of the proposal.

Should the offeror wish to submit, it may be as an annex.

Question 2: Page 11 section C.3 on success factors states that “exercising of option years will be contingent on a multitude of factors.” Will USAID please expand on the most important factors in addition to a reduction in stunting that will be considered to exercise the two option years?

USAID Response: The most important factors, after the reduction of stunting, will be evidence of progress in those areas described in the results framework that are likely to result in a stunting reduction. Further, meeting the conditions of FAR Part 17.207.

Question 3: Page 11 & Page 16 Could USAID clarify the goals for stunting reduction for SUN

TA?

a) On page 11, the RFP states “Successful implementation of this activity will result in a minimum of a two-percentage point reduction in stunting per year over the life of the award.”

b) On page 16, the results framework goal is “Reduce stunting by at least 14% in target districts.”

Could USAID please confirm which objective is operative, as the two figures are not equivalent? Starting with the national prevalence of stunting of 40% in 2014/15, a two-percentage point change per year (with a reduction at the end of each year) would result in a prevalence of stunting of 26% (40%-14 ppt=26%). A 14% reduction would result in a prevalence of stunting of 34.4% (40- [40 x 14%] =34.4%.

USAID Response: The correct goal is 2 percentage points per year or 14 percentage points over 7 years. This is now corrected in the PBWS.

Question 4: Page 12 section C.4 should we include the Ministry of Gender among the government line ministries mentioned on page 12?

USAID Response: The Ministry of Gender is not a signatory on the SUN program at the moment. They are important stakeholders and offerors are welcome to include them, as appropriate.

Question 5: Page 14, section C.4; In the diagram there is a box that says “Each DNCC will have dedicated accountant” and another that says, “One TA representative per province.”

Should the contractor staff and budget for these positions, or are they under the GRZ?

USAID Response: The contractor should not budget for either of these positions; they will be funded by NFNC.

Question 6: Page 16 Section C7; outlines two illustrative indicators related to the water supply, and does not include any indicators associated with institutional sanitation. Would

USAID please clarify whether sanitation in institutional settings, rather than household settings, will be within the scope of this solicitation?

USAID Response: The indicators are illustrative. Offerors should propose indicators that track the highest impact interventions to reduce stunting.

Question 7: Page 16, Section C.7 The results framework on of the RFP does not include family planning or early childhood development. However, section L.7.5 (Menu Development) on page 147 indicates that family planning and early childhood development should be included in the offeror’s menu of activities. Could USAID please confirm that family planning and early childhood development should be considered part of the results framework for SUN TA?

USAID Response: ECD and family planning are catered for within the framework even if not specifically named. These are sub-categories flagged in the menu to emphasize to offerors that they should be included within the areas of health, nutrition, and childcare.

Question 8: Page 21 Section C.11.1 Please clarify that the inception phase is “no longer than six months” but the first annual work plan is for a 12-month period to include six months of implementation after the six months of inception. Then the second annual work plan would be a continuation of the implementation phase—following the completion of the first annual work plan--not following the “completion of the ‘inception phase,’” as stated on page 23 (URC)

USAID Response: This is correct.

Question 9: Page 21 section C.11, Task 3; Can USAID clarify that the SUN TA “menu” described in the RFP should have 2–5 evidence-based interventions in EACH OF the areas of 1) governance, 2) agriculture, 3) WASH, 4) nutrition, 5) health including family planning, 6) early childhood development, and 7) behavior change? (URC)

USAID Response: This is correct.

Question 10: Page 22, Section C.11.1 of the RFP (Task 4) discusses SUN District Plans. It is clear that SUNTA will provide technical assistance (as requested by the Steering Committee) to facilitate approval of these plans. Can USAID clarify if SUN TA will have a role in supporting

DNCCs to develop these plans? (CRS)

USAID Response: The SUN Fund Manager will place a key role in supporting this process but yes, if SUN TA is awarded in time, it should provide technical assistance to update and/or develop these plans to make sure the plans align with evidence-based practices.

Question 11: Page 22, section C.11.1 (TASK 5); of the RFP states, “All monitoring systems and tools must be able to transfer after the life of project and cannot be held on a proprietary system. USAID will own all data and systems that support this project and must be transferable.” We request that USAID consider including the transfer of monitoring systems to the government for sustainability.

USAID Response: Transfer of all property will be noted and approved through the asset disposition plan through the life of the award or end of the contract, whichever is applicable.

Question 12: Page 24, section C.11.2 Implementation Phase Task 4; Since the initial award period is 4 years with 2 optional extension periods, can USAID please clarify the time-related scope of the contractor’s support to NFNC for developing a costed scale-up plan for SUN? in other words, should this plan include an initial 4 year scale up period in line with the initial implementation period of SUN TA, versus an initial 7 year scale up plan?

USAID Response: This will be decided with NFNC at the time of award.

Question 13: Page 24, section C.11.2 Task 5; Direct Implementation, last paragraph:

Please confirm that the term “sub-grant” mentioned means to Grant Under Contract (GUC).

USAID Response: That is correct.

Question 14: Page 26 section C.13 of the RFP notes that “USAID envisions that staff will be co-located with relevant government bodies, ideally at the district level.”

a) If co-located, should the Offeror budget for paying rent for office space from the relevant government bodies?

b) The SUN 2.0 program structure depicted on RFP page 14 lists “One TA representative per province” and the RFP later refers to SUN TA staff working at district levels.

Can USAID please confirm that SUN TA is expected to have staff at both provincial and district levels?

USAID Response: The offeror may choose to pursue co-location where it is feasible and appropriate. Without confirmation of available space, the offeror should budget appropriately for office space until co-location plans are finalized. We understand the diagram may be difficult to follow; NFNC will directly hire an accountant at the DNCC level and provide at least one

TA point of contact at the provincial level.

SECTION F

Question 1: Pages 32-33, section F.5.II; the SUN Activity “Menu” must be submitted to

USAID within 60 days after award and approved within 90 days; the “Menu” must then be accepted by the NFNC 90 days after award. This implies that the NFNC may have zero days to review and accept the menu, depending upon the timing of USAID’s approval. Would USAID consider shifting the approval dates so that the NFNC has adequate time to review and approve the menu following USAID’s approval?

USAID Response: NFNC will be involved from the beginning of the process.

Question 2: Page 33, section F.5.11; Under List of Reports and Plans could USAID please consider changing the due date for “SUN Activity ‘Menu’ accepted by NFNC” to be within 30 days of USAID approval, and not 90 days after award?

USAID Response: No, please see above.

Question 3: Page 35, section F.5.11; Implementation Phase Task 3: Can you please provide operational guidance on GRZ expectations for prioritizing the creation of ward, district or provincial nutrition coordinating committees within the SUN TA project’s portfolio?

USAID Response: GRZ has not yet provided this guidance but is prepared to work with the selected offeror on a rapid roll-out.

Question 4: Page 35, section F.5.11; Implementation Phase Task 3: the RFP states “In situations in which the capacity of district and sub-district levels is limited in a specific area, the

Contractor will fill identified gaps, provide targeted technical support, establish standards, and demonstrate proof of concept.” Can USAID please confirm that it expects NFNC to adopt the ward/district/provincial NCC standards being developed by the contractor as part of this task?

(Adoption by NFNC was a specific outcome for the menu to be developed under Inception Phase Task 3.)

USAID Response: WNCC, DNCC and PNCC are GRZ structures already in place in some areas and SUN is a GRZ-led program. SUN TA will work with these structures to improve performance as needed. The SUN Steering Committee may be consulted if significant changes are necessary.

Question 5: Page 42, section F.9; Key Personnel, USAID designates six key personnel positions. However, this is contradictory to ADS 302.3.5.4 where the number of key personnel designated for any contract must not be more than five individuals. We request that USAID remove one of the key personnel positions.

USAID Response: The designated positions under key personnel are those determined to be essential for the successful performance of this contract. While USAID appreciates the offeror pointing out this policy, it should also note that deviations and approvals have been gathered to ensure compliance.

Question 6: Page 42, section F.9; Key Personnel, we are questioning the necessity of requesting the additional 4 positions beyond the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party.

Usually certain positions are identified as key personnel in the solicitation because the qualifications for those individuals are part of the offeror’s technical evaluation as stated in the evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer qualifies these individuals as key personnel to reduce any unduly or intentional bait and switch of these individuals particularly if they contributed to the winning of the award. In this solicitation, only the qualifications of the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party are evaluated as part of the evaluation criteria in Section M.

Any other individual to be hired under the contract will be subject to USAID’s post-award approval. Therefore, USAID remains in control of who is hired under the contract. We respectfully request that the number of Key Personnel is limited to the first two positions, Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party.

USAID Response: The number of key personnel will remain unchanged as post award approval of non-key personnel is not within the purview of USAID (aside from meeting the rate approval requirements of Section H).

Question 7: Page. 42 section F.9; Would USAID reconsiders its requirement that all key personnel be employed by the prime contractor? Subcontractors that are being engaged for their technical capacity may contribute in a more impactful way if they are able to manage the key personnel that correspond to their technical sector specialty.

USAID Response: In order to mitigate performance risk, USAID will not change this requirement as having Key Personnel from sub-contractor(s) often creates an improper relationship with USAID as USAID has no direct relationship with the sub-contractor. This bring performance challenges through implementation and increases risks with individual(s) who are designated key personnel and not directly accountable with the prime.

SECTION H

Question 1: Page 52, Sections H.3 (d); Annual Salary Increases and L.8 Annual Escalation

Rates of the RFP limit annual CCN salary increases to 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively.

As Zambia has experienced around 10% inflation on average over the past five years, we ask that USAID remove this additional requirement regarding CCN personnel compensation, and allow for the billing of all allowable (reasonable and allocable) costs to this award.

USAID Response: USAID considers 5% salary increase to be fair and reasonable.

Furthermore, offerors must utilize the Missions LCP to ensure pay parity exists.

Question 2: Page 52, section H.3(d)(2); Can USAID please clarify the salary increase expectations? L.8(c) requires that no salary increase of more than 3 percent be applied in proposals; however, H.3(d)(2) allows for a 5 percent increase to TCNs/CCNs annually.

Furthermore, we respectfully request that the above-mentioned restriction for salary increases be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel

Compensation, incorporated in the contract under Section H.2, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold.

USAID Response: Section L.8(c) has been updated to reflect Section H.3. H.3 reflects the

LCP and Mission pay parity.

Question 3: Section H.23 is missing from the RFP. Can USAID please share this section?

USAID Response: This was an omission and the RFP has been properly numbered to correct the discrepancy.

Question 4: Page 72, Section H.29 states; “The total number of GUCs will be capped at 3 per year; the maximum dollar value per GUC will be capped at $200,000; the maximum aggregate value per GUC [sic] will be capped at $600,000 per year.” Grants can provide offerors with a highly effective, flexible implementation mechanism to deliver services in alignment with their technical approach. Additional flexibility in using GUCs could therefore improve offerors' ability to deliver against the scope. Will USAID consider allowing offerors to issue more than 3 GUCs per year in alignment with their technical approach, provided that no grant exceeds $200,000, and the aggregate value of all awards does not exceed $600,000 annually?

USAID Response: This may be revisited once the direct implementation and GUCs are identified; however, the requirement remains unchanged at this time.

Question 5: Page 72, Section H.29; Grants Under Contract, please clarify the following:

a) Please confirm that ADS 303 should be referenced, rather than ADS 302.

b) The RFP states that “The maximum dollar value per GUC will be capped at

$200,000,” and that “The maximum aggregate value per GUC will be capped at $600,000 per year”. Could USAID please clarify what the maximum value per GUC per year should be?”

USAID Response: The reference is correct. Please see response above.

SECTION L

USAID Comment: The following language “USAID/Zambia will reimburse offerors up to

$7,000 for travel expenses for the three individuals (CoP, DCoP, one offeror representative).

All vouchers submitted must have receipts and follow USAID travel regulations” has been removed as there is no additional funding for this effort. We sincerely apologize and have added another option of VTC to ensure offerors are not negatively impacted. Additional language has been added to Section L.6 of the RFP.

USAID Comment: USAID has increased the page limit to 35 and updated the Solicitation accordingly.

Question 1: Page 143 section L.5(d); notes that electronic submission must be “In both

Adobe Acrobat PDF and MS Word…for the technical proposal…” Would USAID please confirm that this requirement applies only to the 25-page technical proposal and not to any annexes to the technical volume?

USAID Response: Yes. The submission in both Adobe Acrobat PDF and MS Word applies to the 25-page technical proposal and not annexes; however, USAID may request annexes in word form, if necessary. Additional language has been added to this section to help clarify.

Question 2: Page 143, section L.5; the mission requests both Word and PDF copies for the technical and PPT and PDF for the slides, but specifies that “Pages containing signatures will be submitted in Adobe acrobat PDF format.” (Page 143). Does the mission want PDFs within the

Word docs?

USAID Response: The MS Word Version will be identical to the PDF, minus the signatures.

Additional language has been added.

Question 3: Page 145, section L.7 To ensure proper transmission of the technical proposal and its annexes, would USAID consider allowing submission of this volume as a PDF (with optical character recognition), with the following elements of Section L.7.c of the RFP submitted as an additional Word document: (5) proposed menu; (6) process to achieve tasks;

(7) key personnel; (8) quality assurance surveillance plan; and (9) management and staffing plan?

USAID Response: The offeror will provide two [the term two is utilized to establish separation] submissions; the first is a PDF version of their technical approach; the second, a word version which is identical minus the signatures and annexes.

Question 4: Page 143, section L.6; Given the high-profile nature of SUN TA, and the need for the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party to have the skills and experience to work effectively with a multitude of high level counterparts, we anticipate that some Zambian Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party candidates may wish to join bids non-exclusively. Non-exclusivity on the part of these key staff has the potential to improve the quality of service offerors can present to USAID, and ensures that all offerors will have equal opportunity to engage highly specialized local staff. However, due to the requirement for presentations, we anticipate that non-exclusivity could result in significant issues for offerors should key staff choose to affiliate themselves with multiple bids. Will USAID consider allowing bidders flexibility in the makeup of permitted presenters to minimize any professional conflicts of interest? For example, if a Zambian candidate is proposed non-exclusively by multiple bidders, would USAID permit the second presenter for a bidder to be a home office technical expert who would be involved in project implementation?

USAID Response: Exclusivity vs. non-exclusivity is at the discretion of the potential employee and offeror. USAID’s requirement for the offeror to furnish their proposed CoP and

DCoP remains unchanged.

Question 5: Page 144, Section L.7(a)(1); notes that technical proposals must include “tabs for ease of reference to each section.” Given that submission is electronic only, in lieu of tabs may offerors provide clickable links from the table of contents to each section of the technical proposal (in both the PDF and the MS Word submissions?

USAID Response: Yes, this has been updated.

Question 6: Page 144, section L.7(a) (1) and (3); state that “tabs for ease of reference to each section” are required; however, the tabs mentioned in (1) are not included in (3), which lists the items that do not count toward the 25-page limit. Can USAID please confirm that tabs will not count toward the 25-page limit?

USAID Response: Please see above, the term “tabs” has been removed.

Question 7: Page 145, Section L.7(a)(4); notes that “All information from appendices must be referenced in the technical proposal and summarized and included in the annex section.” Can

USAID please define a proposal annex and a proposal appendix?

USAID Response: The two terms may be used interchangeable and it’s up to the offeror to accurately present the information. For ex, an offeror may only have Annexes and others may have Annexes with an Appendix that supplement’s the Annex.