Malaria_Solicitation_modification__1.pdf

Solicitation # SOL-617-14-000010 Malaria Action Program for Districts

Amendment #1

CONTINUATION PAGE

Amendments to the Solicitation

Please refer to the attached solicitation which has been re-released in its entirety to address the questions received. To facilitate review, all changes have been highlighted in yellow. Changes with strikethrough text (e.g. strike through) are deleted from the solicitation. They have been left in strikethrough text only to show Offerors what is being removed from the solicitation.

Questions received from offerors and responses from USAID/Uganda:

1. Could USAID please provide a full list of preventive, diagnostic, and treatment-related supplies and equipment to be procured and/or otherwise covered under MAPD, as well as the anticipated quantities?

Response: No preventive, diagnostic or treatment supplies or equipment will be purchased under MAPD. These procurements will be done by a USAID centrally managed procurement mechanism.

2. General comment on supply chain management (based on review of pages 5-9)

Noting that monitoring stock-outs of drugs and supplies (e.g., RDTs, reagents, and ACTs) is within the scope of this contract, could the Mission clarify if the contractor is expected to address other aspects of SCM? Examples might include monitoring over-supply as well as stock outs, redistributing supplies, helping to shift from a “push-kit” system to a “pull” system for supply, procuring IV Artesunate, helping to develop a plan for sustained supply of IV Artesunate, etc.) And if so, what, specifically? If not, could the Mission clarify which contractor(s) are responsible for these and other elements of SCM, as coordination will be important.

Response: This program will be limited to providing technical assistance (TA) including monitoring over-supply and stock-outs of essential supplies. Planning for the sustained supply of essential commodities is not envisaged under this program. This service is provided under USAID Uganda’s Supply Chain Management mechanism. Procurements are done under USAID centrally managed procurement mechanism.

3. On page 16 the RFP states that the Contractor will address issues in the treatment of severe malaria by procuring drugs and training health workers in their use. However, on page 19, the RFP states that LLINs, ACTs, RDTs and Artesunate will be procured through another USAID mechanism. Please clarify whether or not this contractor will be procuring drugs for severe malaria.

Response: All malaria commodities will be procured through another mechanism. However, when there are challenges in supply chain hence failure to provide lifesaving drugs for severe malaria, the Contractor may be required to procure small amount for immediate and urgent use

Amendment #1 with USAID approval. The funding for this procurement will come out of the plug figures for subcontracts. Refer to page 16 of the RFP for revised language.

4. On p.16 second paragraph, concerning the procurement of severe malaria drugs, the RFP states “the Contractor will address issues in the treatment of severe malaria by procuring drugs and training health workers…” but on p.19 last sentence it states “LLINs, ACTs, RDTs and artesunate required by this activity will be procured through another USAID mechanism.”

Will the project be expected to procure any severe malaria drugs? Can USAID please indicate more clearly whether the MAPD will be expected to do any commodities procurement?

Response: This program is not expected to procure any drugs. These will be procured by the USAID centrally managed procurement mechanism. Also refer to responses to questions 1, 2 and 3 above.

5. Page 16 of the RFP states that “the Contractor will address issues in the treatment of malaria by procuring drugs and training health workers in their use.” Under sub-result 2.3.2, the text states that PMI fills the gap for severe malaria drugs. Could USAID please confirm if the Contractor is expected to budget and procure severe malaria drugs as part of this project?

Response: Malaria drugs will be procured by a USAID centrally managed procurement mechanism. Also refer to responses to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.

6. On page 15 of the RFP it states: “Since GF has huge procurement of ACTs and RDTs, there is no need for major procurement of ACTs.” Is the contractor expected to procure ACTs and RDTs at a smaller scale or not at all?

Response: No. Please see responses to questions 1 to 5, above.

7. Will the project procure LLINs (referenced on pages 14-15 of the RFP)?

Response: No. Please see responses to questions 1 to 5, above.

8. Can USAID confirm that offerors are expected to procure drugs for treatment of severe malaria, as referenced on page 16 of the RFP?

Response: No. Please see responses to questions 1 to 5, above.

9. Will any property, such as furniture, equipment or vehicles be made available from another project for Uganda MAPD?

Response: No. Please budget for all your furniture, equipment and vehicle needs.

Amendment #1

10. On page 14, the last paragraph under the IPTp section mentions activities that will be done in 2014 by “the Contractor”. Could USAID clarify whether the statements in this paragraph reference activities undertaken by the current implementing partner (who is an awardee, but not a contractor) in 2014 or are new activities to be undertaken by the upcoming contractor in 2015? If the former, would USAID consider providing an update on progress?

Response: This date has been revised to 2015. Please refer to page 14 of the RFP released with this Amendment 1.

11. On page 16, the RFP states that “this activity will fund training, logistics support, and supportive supervision for VHTs and/or community drug distributors implementing iCCM.” Will the iCCM pilot cover the full spectrum of causes of the key childhood illnesses?

Response: The Contractor is required to cover Malaria case management alone. However, situations may arise where the Contractor must collaborate with other USAID/MCH projects.

Please refer to page 21 of the RFP released with this Amendment 1.

12. Could USAID please confirm if the Contractor is expected to procure additional non-malaria medicines for iCCM for the one central district (anti-diarrheals, ORS, zinc)?

Response: No, the Contractor is not expected to procure additional non malaria medicines.

13. Page 16 states that “PMI will reinstitute support for iCCM in one central district in FY 2014 in this activity.” Page 21 references a phased roll out of iCCM with ACTs in highly endemic areas.

Will this program be expected to support iCCM in just one district in the central region or should offerors plan and budget support for a roll out to all project districts as appropriate?

Response: The Contractor shall support iCCM in one central district with FY 2014 funding and then iCCM shall be implemented in two central districts with FY 2015 funding. Refer to page 21 of the RFP issued with this Amendment 1 for revised language.

14. Page 21 of the RFP states: “Under this sub-result, the Contractor must work with the NMCP/DHMTs to propose and support iCCM in one district in the central region, and to develop and implement a plan for the phased roll-out of iCCM with ACTs in highly endemic areas with low levels of health facility access. While the NMCP policy is to roll this out nationally, PMI support must only be used for the most highly endemic areas.” Could USAID please confirm if the Contractor implements iCCM in one district, and they should then only provide support to the NMCP to scale it up in other districts? Or is the contractor expected to implement iCCM in other areas (highly endemic)?

Response: Refer to response to question No.13, above.

15. On page 17, the last paragraph under “Diagnosis” mentions support for improved diagnostics in the private for-profit sectors. Could USAID confirm that no support for diagnostics will be given to private not-for-profit facilities?

Response: There will be diagnostic TA support to private not-for-profit (PNFP) facilities.

Amendment #1

16. Page 18 of the RFP states that PMI continues to support basic equipment at the district level to improve data collection and reporting. Should this equipment be included in the program budget and if so would USAID please provide a list of this equipment? Also, could USAID clarify what qualifies as “basic equipment” as well as “IT maintenance?”

Response: Yes, this equipment should be included in the program budget. This includes, but is not limited to, provision and support for internet data modems and data bundles to district local government teams involved in data collection, analysis and reporting.

17. On page 18, in the paragraph that begins “When the HMIS was updated in 2010”…there is a sentence stating “PMI continues to support basic connection and internet technology maintenance”. Does PMI want the Offeror to include continued support for this in its proposal?

Response: Yes, PMI wants continued support for basic connection and internet technology maintenance. Also refer to response to question No.16, above.

18. On page 18, the last sentence on that page notes, “PMI will ensure our activities are working with and supportive of the RPMTs.” Could USAID provide more detail on the expected role of the Contractor, vis-à-vis the RPMTs and the type of support or activities desired?

Response: The Contractor should make the RPMTs aware of their activities and travel (including site visits and supportive supervision) so that the RPMTs can occasionally join the Contractor.

19. On page 18, where malaria sentinel surveillance is discussed, is the contractor expected to undertake strengthening activities at sentinel sites or at all facilities within the 43 project districts? If only the sentinel sites, are we required to do the work in all 12 sites, even if they are outside the 43 project districts?

Response: The Contractor is expected to improve data quality and surveillance in all project districts, and ideally at all health facilities including sentinel sites. The Contractor is not expected to actively work with districts outside the 43 project districts (except where otherwise indicated for national level activities).

20. On page 19, the RFP mentions collaboration with USAID’s Communications for Healthy Communities. For work planning and budgeting purposes, could USAID clarify what types of activities would be covered under CHC’s work plan and budget and what should be covered under the MAPD work plan and budget?

Response: To avoid duplication, the Contractor shall collaborate and coordinate with the Communication for Health Communities (CHC) in terms of development and dissemination of malaria related materials for behavior change communication (BCC). However, the Contractor will carry out malaria-specific BCC including interactive communication, community dialogues, radio and print malaria-specific information, education and communication (IEC) materials.

Amendment #1

21. In relation to collaboration with the Communications for Healthy Communities (CHC) activity (p.19), should the contractor budget for BCC activities and IEC or other district/community-based communications materials, or can it expect that CHC has an adequate budget to support MAP project needs?

Response: Refer response to question No. 20, above.

22. On page 19, under “Collaboration with Other Implementing Partners and Donors”, (and again in bullet 4 on page 24), for the purpose of planning and budgeting, could USAID clarify what, if any, financial support is expected from the Contractor vis-à-vis the technical working groups?

Response: Yes, technical and financial support (e.g. financing and organizing meetings/workshops, providing technical assistance) is expected to technical working groups (TWGs) by this program. However, this will be jointly reviewed with and approved by USAID at the time of actual implementation.

23. On page 21, could USAID confirm that there should be a separate indicator of 85% coverage for “Proportion of women who received two or more doses of IPTp for malaria during ANC visits during their last pregnancy in intervention districts (HMIS)?

Response: Yes, that is correct. Please refer to page 21 where the two indicators have been separated out into two rows, each with 85%.

24. Page 21 of the RFP seems to list two indicators jointly, with a target of 85% with the proportion of pregnant women attending ANC who received ITNs at ANC clinics, and proportion of women who received two or more doses of IPTp for malaria during ANC, etc. Could USAID please confirm if these should be two separate indicators each with a target of 85%?

Response: Refer to response to question No.23, above.

25. In “Section 3. Intended Results” under “Result 1: Effective malaria prevention programs implemented in support of the National Malaria Control Strategy” in the table of key required indicators (page 21), is the second indicator intended to be two distinct indicators and read “Proportion of women attending ANC who received ITNs at ANC clinics (HMIS),” and “Proportion of women who received two or more doses of IPTp for malaria during ANC visits during their last pregnancy in intervention districts (HMIS)”? If they are supposed to be two separate indicators, are both indicator standards 85%?

Response: Refer to responses to questions 23 and 24, above.

Amendment #1

26. On page 21, under the first paragraph of Result 2, the RFP states, “The Contractor will also extend technical assistance to USAID’s integrated district-based activities.” Could USAID clarify the expected type of technical assistance that the MAPD contractor is expected to provide and in which districts or regions?

Response: The Contractor will be expected to provide nationwide technical assistance as needed by the integrated health activities. Technical Assistance (TA) would involve, but is not limited to, support for district level planning, implementation and support supervision.

27. On page 21 under 2.1 where it states that the Contractor must monitor community level stocks of ACTs and RDTs as appropriate, are we also responsible for ensuring stocks of drugs and supplies for pneumonia and diarrhea?

Response: MAPD contractor will not be responsible for ensuring stocks of drugs and supplies for pneumonia and diarrhea.

28. Can USAID clarify what collaboration with professional councils is being referred to (page 21 of the RFP)?

Response: This includes working with councils such as doctors’, nurses’ and midwives’ councils to leverage their existing nation-wide work to benefit MAPD activities and reach. The Contractor will provide financial and technical support to their work as needed – this will require USAID review and approval at the time of implementation.

29.On page 23, under Result 3.1, could USAID clarify any missing words in the sentence, “Ensure effective leadership, management, coordination and monitoring of key malaria interventions, and ensure that they are integrated into district planning, budgeting, reporting, and monitoring process including and integrated support supervision.” ?

Response: “Ensure effective leadership, management, coordination and monitoring of key malaria interventions. Ensure that the key malaria intervention and support supervision are integrated into district planning, budgeting, reporting, and monitoring process including.” Please see page 23 of the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1.

30. On page 25, first paragraph, could USAID clarify that the STAR-E project will carry out the LQAS and that the role of the contractor is to coordinate with STAR-E and analyze malaria-related data? Also, could USAID provide information on which districts STAR-E’s LQAS covers?

Response: STAR-E will be closing in the next few months. LQAS activities and actual districts will be included in the follow-on program to STAR-E and will be discussed at the time of implementation of the STAR-E follow-on, the Regional Health Integration to Enhance Services in Eastern Uganda (RHITES-E) activity.

Amendment #1

31. Section 3.1 on page 23 notes “Improve the quality, validity, reliability, timeliness of HMIS and use of HMIS at health facility levels, and ensure that the HMIS data reported in target districts also captures PFP data.” Will contractor be responsible to ensure HMIS data reported in target districts also captures PNFP data?

Response: Yes, the Contractor will be responsible for HMIS and PNFP data in the 43 districts.

32. On page 27 the RFP states that USAID “expects GOU offices to demonstrate their partnership through their financial support to employees for the travel and per diem to meetings and events” and that USAID does not allow or support financial payments to government employees such as travel expenses. Would USAID please clarify this further? For example if the program is assisting the DHMTs to complete supportive supervision to health facilities is the program allowed to pay for fuel for the supportive supervision visits? If the visits were more than one day would the project be allowed to pay for lodging for DHMT members that were part of the supportive supervision team or would the GOU be expected to pay for these costs?

Response: Salary stipends and sitting allowances are not authorized. But, travel and overnight allowances/per diem are authorized. Further guidance on this is being developed by USAID/Uganda and will be discussed during implementation. You may budget for travel, and overnight allowances/per diem for government officials. Refer to revised text on page 28 of the RFP released with this Amendment 1.

33. On page 28, the second full paragraph notes that the activity “encourages women to benefit from family planning services.” Could USAID clarify the MAPD Contractor’s role in promoting family planning?

Response: This language has been deleted from the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1. MAPD has no role in promoting family planning.

34. On page 29, the RFP mentions a Youth Action Plan. Is this an addendum to the Work Plan that is to be submitted within 45 days of award?

Response: Yes

35. Section C.4(h) on page 29 includes “in-kind grants to districts or other Government entities” as part of the Malaria Action Program’s grants program. Is the Contractor allowed to award cash grants as well as in-kind grants to district governments? If not, can the Contractor award in-kind grants that provide services such as training, travel, and lodging to districts and Government entities?

Response: In-kind grants are allowed under this program. But, cash grants to district government are not authorized.

Amendment #1

36. On page 37, section 4.2.10, the opening sentence indicates that it is not certain whether the Contractor should carry out a baseline. The remainder of the paragraph describes the baseline in language that suggests it is required. Could USAID clarify if the Contractor is expected to carry out a baseline assessment?

Response: Yes, the Contractor and USAID shall determine whether there is a need for a baseline report. If the Contractor and USAID agree to not carry out a baseline, the Contractor can use the findings and recommendations of the end-of -project evaluation of Stop Malaria Project as baseline data.

37. On p12-13, USAID provides the specific objectives under the National Control Strategy 2010/11-2014/15. For objective 2, “To provide effective preventive treatment for pregnant women with at least two doses of SP for IPTp,” could USAID please indicate whether this indicator will be modified to reflect frequent dosing?

Response: This is adopted from the NMCP strategy document and yes, it can be modified based on the new WHO 2012 guideline on IPTp.

38. On p13, USAID provides the core interventions under the National Control Strategy 2010/11-2014/15. For intervention 2, “IRS with a focus both on low and epidemic-prone areas (to prevent malaria epidemics) and high transmission endemic areas, accompanied by environmental management where feasible and effective (IRS is currently implemented via USAID’s Indoor Residual Spraying Indefinite Quantity Contract and is not included in this contract),” could USAID please indicate whether MAPD is expected to support the NMCP to implement IRS? If so, what type of support would be required?

Response: This program is not expected to implement IRS activities.

39. On page 17 paragraph 4, the SOW states that this activity will support quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) and provide supportive supervision to health workers to improve parasite based diagnosis at all levels of the health system and in both public and private facilities; while on page 21 section 2.2, the SOW states that the contractor must collaborate with NMCP/DHMTs to improve microscopy at HC IV and some HC III facilities. Does this imply that the contractor is not expected improve microscopy at hospitals?

Response: The Contractor should improve microscopy everywhere microscopy is used, including district hospitals. New language on this is included in yellow text on page 23 of the

RFP.

40. p.21 – under Result 2, the RFP states “the Contractor will also extend technical assistance to USAID’s integrated district based activities”. Is this referring to the districts where there is a

DOP?

Response: Yes and other districts as USAID’s program evolves nationally.

Amendment #1

41. Page 21, section 2.1: iCCM activities: while we understand that the project will fully support the implementation of iCCM in one central region district, it is not clear the level of implementation required for the subsequent roll-out of iCCM to other highly endemic districts.

While the document states the areas of support expected, it mentions iCCM with ACTs so it is unclear if the project can procure non-malaria commodities for pneumonia and diarrhoea. It is also unclear the level of implementation expected from the project as part of this roll-out.

Response: The Contractor will collaborate and support the DHMT in the implementation of iCCM in one central district with FY 2014 funding and two districts with FY 2015 funding. The subsequent expansion to other districts shall be determined between the Contractor and

USAID.

42. Page 22 Indicator states “Proportion receiving a first-line severe malaria drug, among children under five years old admitted to an inpatient facility who received any antimalarial drug.” Can we suggest that this ought to state children admitted with suspected severe malaria. It is possible that a child becomes an inpatient for another complaint and is given a course of ACT as a precaution.

Response: Yes, this is possible. To obviate this issue, we have revised the indicator to, “Proportion receiving a first-line severe malaria drug, among children under five years old admitted to an inpatient facility with a diagnosis of malaria who received any antimalarial drug.”

For consistency, we have revised the outpatient indicator to, “Proportion receiving a first-line antimalarial drug, among children under five years old with a diagnosis of malaria who received any antimalarial drug at outpatient department (OPD).” Please reference page 23 of the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1.

43. The RFP mentions the National Monitoring & Evaluation Plan for 2012-2015 in the M&E section; however this document is currently not available online. Could USAID please share this document if it is available?

Response: The “MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN FOR NATIONAL MALARIA CONTROL STRATEGIC PLAN 2010/11 – 2014/15” is attachment J.16 of the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1.

44. All future RHITES projects are expected to support activities to improve the functionality and utility of the HMIS. While the Uganda MAP is not part of RHITES projects, is it nonetheless safe to assume that Uganda MAPD should align with the USG integrated health regional platform approach for health systems strengthening?

Response: Yes, the Contractor will align with the USG integrated health regional platform approach for health systems strengthening.

Amendment #1

45. Is USAID currently supporting any health sector M&E/HMIS coordinating mechanism at the national level (such as the Supervision, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Technical Working Group – SMER TWG) that is responsible for coordination of various stakeholders committed to the “three ones” principle?

Response: Yes, USAID currently supports technical working groups responsible for coordination of various stakeholders committed to the “three ones” principle.

46. The Uganda MOP for FY14 mentions that PMI will continue to support sentinel surveillance.

Will USAID support malaria sentinel surveillance activities through MAP?

Response: Sentinel surveillance will be supported through a different mechanism. As mentioned previously, the Contractor is expected to improve data quality and surveillance in all project districts, and ideally at all health facilities.

47. The Uganda MOP for FY14 mentions that PMI will continue to support end-use verification surveys. Will USAID support end-use verification surveys through MAP?

Response: End user verification (EUV) surveys will not be implemented through this program (MAPD) but through USAID/Uganda’s current supply chain mechanism.

48. Does CDC/PMI anticipate conducting Health Facility Surveys in the MAPD regions? If not, is it an activity that can be incorporated in this project?

Response: Yes, but this will be under CDC’s malaria surveillance project and not under MAPD.

49. Is USAID currently supporting any mHealth initiatives designed to improve the functionality and utility of the current HMIS?

Response: No.

50. Would mHealth strategies supportive of HMIS reporting and M&E activities be viewed as an acceptable MAPD intervention?

Response: It would have to be a strategy approved by both MOH and PMI. There have been an abundance of poorly coordinated and unofficial mHealth strategies in Uganda’s past.

51. As there are a few key local partners that are integral to the success of MAP for Districts, could USAID clarify that local partners not be secured through an “exclusive” relationship with a Contractor and thus available for collaboration on the successful Contractor?

Response: Offerors should not request exclusive relationships with collaborating local partners.

Amendment #1

52. The provision of ITNs and LLINs by PMI and other partners is a critical component for success of the USAID/Uganda MAP project. Can USAID share the anticipated PMI or Global Fund distribution schedule/plan for the five-year project period? This will affect the roll out of project activities and planning, per the USAID Stop Malaria Project Evaluation.

Response: This is available online. It is included in the approved malaria operational plans for Uganda. See http://www.pmi.gov/resource-library/mops for copies of the MOPs. This link has been added as Attachment J.18, on page 70 of the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1.

53. Page 24 of the RFP states the Contractor must implement: "Technical assistance to develop the DHMT's capacity to ensure effective leadership, management, coordination and monitoring of key malaria indicators." Will this include coordination, management and reporting against IRS activities, even though IRS activities will be conducted under another mechanism? Could USAID please confirm how the Contractor will be required to work with the IRS program?

Response: Coordination, management and reporting against IRS activities is conducted under another USAID/Uganda mechanism and the Contractor for this program does not have to report against these activities. However, the Contractor will be expected to collaborate with the IRS Contractor in areas such as BCC and support supervision to avoid duplication in districts where both Contractors work.

54. P. 7 of the RFP under the 1st bullet point states that the program must “provide universal coverage and encourage utilization of preventive measures with Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) and Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS).” However, p. 13 of the RFP, under National Malaria Control Strategic Plan, the RFP states that “IRS is currently implemented via USAID’s Indoor Residual Spraying Indefinite Quantity Contract and is not included in this contract.”

Would USAID please confirm that IRS will not be included under this contract?

Response: IRS is not included in this contract.

55. P. 29 of the RFP states that contractors must develop a youth action plan (YAP) as an addendum to the work plan

Does the 3 page limit include both the work plan and YAP?

Response: No, the 3 page limit does not include the work plan and YAP. Please refer to page 29 and page 90 of the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1.

56. Could PMI clarify the role of the RPMTs referenced on page 18 of the RFP? Are they functional? How is their role/responsibility differentiated from that of the NMCP and DHMTs for M&E?

Response: The Regional Performance Monitoring Team (RPMT) should be seen as an extension of the NMCP in assisting the districts. The RPMT’s are housed at the regional level and monitor the performance of malaria and other activities in their respective health facilities.

Amendment #1

The role of the Regional PMT complements the role of National MCP and District HMTs. The RPMTs are functional.

57. Who are the beneficiaries referred to on page 34 of the RFP? DHMTs, or communities?

Response: Beneficiaries are DHMTs and communities.

58. On page 25, USAID references a “Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) Contractor”.

Could USAID please clarify who this is?

Response: QED Group, LLC

59. Could USAID please define what is meant by “renovation” and what is meant by “construction”?

Response: USAID Definition for construction: “Construction” for purposes of this policy means:

construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging and excavation) of buildings, structures, or other real property and includes, without limitation, improvements, renovation, alteration and refurbishment. The term includes, without limitation, roads, power plants, buildings, bridges, water treatment facilities, and vertical structures.

“Improvements, renovation, alteration and refurbishment” for purposes of this policy includes any betterment or change to an existing property to allow its continued or more efficient use within its designed purpose (renovation), or for the use of a different purpose or function (alteration). Improvements also include improvements to or upgrading of primary mechanical, electrical, or other building systems. “Improvements, renovation, alteration and refurbishment” does NOT include non-structural, cosmetic work, including painting, floor covering, wall coverings, window replacement that does not include changing the size of the window opening, replacement of plumbing or conduits that does not affect structural elements, and non-load bearing walls or fixtures (e.g., shelves, signs, lighting, etc.).

60. In “Section 4. Activity Performance Monitoring & Evaluation” (page 24), the RFP mentions that “Contractor annual performance on only the key indicators will be considered for purposes of calculation of the award fee...Other indicators to measure Contractor achievement are also listed, though these will not count towards the award fee.” For the indicators that are listed in the table on page 24, is every indicator a key indicator on which fee will be calculated, or are only the indicators listed above the shaded box key indicators on which fee will be calculated?

Response: Under Section 3- “Intended results” (page 20) there are three results (Result 1:

Prevention, Result 2: Case management, Result 3: Capacity). Each result has key indicators for the purposes of calculation of the award fee just above the shaded lines of every indicator table.

The Contractor’s annual performance shall be calculated for the key indicators of the Result 1, 2 and 3.

Amendment #1

61. “Section F.6 Key Personnel” (pages 38-40) lists the key personnel requirements. Given the available talent pool with the requisite skills and experience to successfully carry out the Uganda Malaria Action Program for Districts, would USAID consider requiring that all proposed Ugandan candidates remain non-exclusive? This would ensure that those individuals who are best suited to work on this project will have the opportunity to do so regardless of the outcome of the award process.

USAID Response: Offerors should not request exclusive commitments from key personnel candidates.

62. It is not clear where PBF-related funding – apart from that for construction – would be sourced. Would the source of PBF subcontracts funds for the private sector come from the $4,000,000 allocation for subcontracts? Would grant funding for MOUs with the districts also come from the $4,000,000 allocated in the RFP as “Grants”?

Response: Yes, this has to come from the $4 million plug amount.

63. Would USAID make available the most current FSN pay scale?

Response: Attached to this amendment, as Attachment J.17, please find a memo summarizing the information in the current LCP.

64. Should we use the DSSR per diem rates, or does USAID want Offerors to use other per diem rates given market conditions in Uganda? If so, would USAID make those rates available?

Response: Offerors must not propose per diem rates in excess of those in the DSSR. However, Offerors can choose to propose lower rates.

65. Would USAID please clarify the anticipated start date for this program?

Response: USAID anticipates this program will start o/a March 2015

66. The RFP provides a budget template. Are we required to use this exact format or is it acceptable to use another format if all of the items listed in the template are included?

Response: Offerors must use the budget format, Attachment J.6 to the RFP. However, Offerors should add rows to the budget categories as necessary. For example, you should add the names and titles of individuals budgeted under labor categories. Or, add additional categories under the Other Direct Cost section, such as legal fees, office rental etc.

Amendment #1

67. On page 8 of the RFP (Section B.4) plug figures were provided for subcontracts, grants and construction. Are these illustrative amounts? Does the line item for subcontracts also include performance-based subcontracts in addition to our consortium subcontracts?

Response: The figures are not illustrative. The Offeror must keep the plug figures as stated.

They do not include consortium subcontracts. They are intended for performance based subcontracts only.

68. Section H.27 prohibits the Contractor from providing financial support to the Government of Uganda Ministry of Health central headquarters staff. Does this restriction also apply to providing financial support to Ministry of Health District employees?

Response: No, the same restriction does not apply to Ministry of Health District employees.

69. Can USAID please confirm that per ADS 302.3.4.13, the Grants Under Contract authority which allows the contractor to execute grants with non-governmental organizations and partner government entities will be included in the resulting contract?

Response: USAID confirms that it will add language allowing the contractor to execute grants with non-governmental organizations and partner government entities in award resulting from this solicitation.

70. On page 90 of the RFP, USAID mentions “prospective” partner organizations that we may hope to work with. Can USAID clarify what types of organizations they are referring to here?

Response: This refers to any organization that the Offeror proposes to work with, including consortium members.

71. Page 54 states that the contractor must include VAT expenses in the award budget and bill USAID for payment of VAT. Would USAID please clarify what rate should be used for VAT?

Should VAT be applied to each relevant line item, or listed separately? Should VAT be included in the Total Estimated Costs or excluded and estimated outside of the line items in Attachment J6?

Response: In Uganda, VAT is calculated at 18%. VAT will be incorporated into the cost of goods and services consumed by the project. For example, the proposed cost of purchasing a computer should be inclusive of VAT. VAT must not be budgeted as a separate line item.

72. On page 90, under Personnel and Staffing Plan instructions, the RFP states that Offerors are not required to submit Resumes for persons other than Key Personnel. Could USAID clarify whether Resumes for non-Key Personnel are allowed?

Response: No, do not submit non Key Personnel resumes.

Amendment #1

73. On page 90 of the RFP, can the LOE table requested as part of the Management Plan, be included instead in an Annex?

Response: The requested table showing the level of effort (LOE) for each proposed personnel can be presented as part of the Management structure under Annex E. Accordingly, page limit for Annex E has been increased from 4 to 5 pages.

74. Please confirm that USAID would like the budget presented by CLIN, per the table provided on p8 of the RFP.

Response: Budget/cost proposal must be presented in the format of attachment J.6- Budget Template.

75. Section C.4 (d) page 27: The RFP indicates that, USAID does not allow or support financial payments to government employees including among others facilitation fees and travel expenses. However, does Section H.27, page 59 (indicating that financial payments to the Ministry of Health (MOH) central headquarters staff are also disallowed without specific written authorization from the USAID/Uganda Mission Director) mean that is it permissible to budget for these costs with the provision that written permission would be sought by the contractor on a case by case basis or by some other mechanism?

Response: Salary top ups or stipends are unallowable. The Offeror can budget for travel and overnight allowances/per diem for Government Officials. USAID/Uganda is reviewing this issue and will provide further guidance after award.

76. On p86 of the RFP, USAID requires, “The Offeror must submit the proposal via internet email with up to 3 attachments (4MB limit) per email.” Please clarify whether the 4MB limit is per attachment or per email.

Response: The 4MB limit was per email. Note that USAID has increased the limit to 5MB per email. Please refer to the text on page 87 of the revised RFP released with this Amendment 1.

77. On p90 of the RFP, USAID defines “major subcontractor” as “each major subcontractor (whose proposed cost equals 20% or more of the Offeror’s total proposed cost or any subcontractor, which shall have principle responsibility for implementing one or more of the program components/deliverables or results area regardless of dollar value)” Please define “principle responsibility” and clarify what constitutes a “program component/deliverable or result area.”

Response: Principle responsibility means that the subcontractor is primarily responsible for achievement of a program component/deliverable or result area. A program component/deliverable or result area could include a Result or Sub Result as described in the Statement of Work in the RFA or a program component such as Monitoring and Evaluation, Grant management, trainings or technical areas required in administration of the award.

Amendment #1

78. On p95 of the RFP, USAID indicates that the presentation of the cost proposal shall follow the format in the budget template provided in attachment J.6. Please confirm that offerors have some flexibility in terms of presenting major budget line items, such as per diem proposed per trip, along with airfare, as opposed to segregating per diem.

Response: Please refer to response in question no.4 above.

79. Can the Technical Approach document include reference documents as footnotes?

Response: Offerors can include references as footnotes to note the source of information provided. However, the Technical Evaluation will only include evaluation of the 30 pages that form the technical proposal. The technical evaluation committee will not be able to read and evaluate the references cited.

80. In Section B.4. (Budget) under Part I – The Schedule (page 8 of the RFP), the budget allocated for “Subcontracts” are anticipated to be at $4,000,000. Could USAID please clarify which entities are being referred to as recipients of “subcontracts” in this case? i.e. does this apply to sub-partners of the prime contractors/offerors (members of the offeror consortium)?

Could also USAID confirm that the $4 million allocation for Subcontracts and Grants is per year or what is the allocation over the life of project?

Response: Members of the Offeror consortium should not form part of the subcontract and grant funding. USAID also confirms that the $4 million plug figure for Subcontracts and Grants is for the entire life of project.

81. Page 87, Section L.8 B) and page 90, section L.8 C) of the RFP both mention the management plan. Would USAID please confirm if the management plan should be included with the personnel and staffing plan, or with the management approach and institutional capability?

Response: Management plan should be included with the management approach and institutional capability.

82. For Section D, past performance, should this section be placed in the annex? (p. 90). Or are applicants expected to describe them in the technical approach, and in Annex C, per instructions there. Also, are all five past performance examples for the entire project consortium, or up to five per Contractor and major sub-contractor?

Response: Offerors can provide a list of past performance in the technical proposal and the details in “Annex C”. Past performance information should be provided for the entire project consortium members (five for prime and five for each sub-contractor).

Amendment #1

83. On page 93, ‘biographical data sheets are required for all long term, short term expatriates and for all short term and long term cooperating country personnel being proposed. On Page 88, the RFP states that Annex B will include key personnel resumes and letters of commitment.

Can USAID confirm if biographical data sheets are required for non-key personnel who are named in the proposal?

Response: Biographical data sheets are required non key personnel including long and short term expatriate staff, long and short term cooperating country personnel identified in the budget.

84. On page 92, the RFP states that the “Digitizing Payments for USAID Beneficiaries in Uganda” is available in Annex J.14. However, this was not posted online with the RFP documents. Could USAID please make available to bidders?

Response: Under Section J, there is an active link to this document. However, USAID can provide a copy as attachment to solicitation amendment.

85. Section G.7. Award Fee Evaluation. Attachment J.7. Award Fee Plan. A) Award-Fee Determination Procedures.

No. 3. Procedures for Evaluating Award Fee. The RFP states that: “The Contractor will be invited to the quarterly review meeting to present their self-assessment and hear recommendations and findings of the AFB.”

Would USAID allow the contractor to incorporate the AFB recommendations before the final submission and evaluation of the performance factors as suggested in No. 4 Performance Monitoring (PM) section?

Response: The AFB will provide the Contractor an opportunity to respond to the recommendations and findings and these will be incorporated into the report provided to the FDO. (see amended Annex J.7)

86. “The annual award fee determination will be communicated to the Contractor via a letter from the FDO. The letter will authorize the contractor to invoice the approved annual fee.”

How does USAID intend to incorporate the quarterly fee determination into the approved annual fee?

Response: Quarterly award fee determinations form part of the annual AFB findings and recommendations to the FDO.

Amendment #1

87. B) Performance Evaluation Criteria. “Technical criteria used in making award fee decisions under the proposed contract are divided into three major parts…” This section lists a series of technical elements.

Would USAID please explain how the evaluation criteria would apply to milestones that may not take place at the outset of the project? There are certain sub-factors that take place more towards the middle or end of the project, not at the beginning, yet the sub-factors do not reflect this. They are the same for each year of the project. Can USAID provide clarification of its logic behind the sub-factors? Also, the assigned score for the “partner and stakeholder relations” and “compliance with environmental regulations” seem disproportionately high. Would USAID redistribute the weigh assigned to these sub-factors?

Response: USAID and the contractor will work together in development of the award fee matrix, taking into consideration and reviewing and ensuring milestones that will be currently running during specific implementation period of the project and based on current workplan. USAID maintains the high scores for “partner and stakeholder relations” and “compliance with environmental regulations”

88. Business Management. It is stated that “a number of evaluation criteria in this general area are judged pertinent in award fee decisions…” Among them, for instance, it is included is ‘on-time deployment and effective management of key personnel.”

How does USAID intend to measure sub-factors, such as an on-time deployment? Would it be based on the approved Work Plan?

Response: USAID may measure sub-factor such as on-time deployment by looking that parameters like time taken to mobilize and have staff on ground, response to staff call to report on specific activities etc. Please see response to question No. 25.

89. Cost Considerations. “The following criteria will apply to award fee decisions:… - accuracy of contract financing projections…”

How does USAID define ‘accuracy’ for this type of financing projections?

Response: USAID will consider how close cost projections would be compared with actuals incurred.

Amendment #1

90. Grading Table & Award Fee Conversion Chart. Score Category Percentage Formula. The formula included for the ‘award fee percentage’ = [Score Category Percentage x (Award % High

– Award % Low)] + Award % Low.”

There seems to be several inconsistencies and mathematical errors in the explanation of the calculations. For instance, can USAID explain the formula:

50 x (79-60) + 60 =70%.

Also, the “Score Category Percentage” formula reads: “= (7,500 = 7,001)/(8,000 – 7,001) = 50%.”

There seems to be a mistake on the formula in the “Evaluated Score” section. As per this example, it should be 7,715. Please clarify.

Response: The example has been corrected, see Annex J.7

Can USAID explain why such an overly elaborate scheme is required for the award fee calculation?

Response: USAID/Uganda feels that this scheme provides a correct level of attribution to the various categories evaluated.

91. L.11. (b) Part 2 – Proposed Costs/Prices.L.11. (G). The total value of all construction to be implemented under the award must not exceed $1 million.

Would USAID confirm that this is exclusive of any potential environmental compliance costs that may take place?

Response: Yes. Construction costs for this awards must not exceed $1million excluding potential environmental compliance costs.

92. L.11. (d)(4). A list of different Parts are to be included in the cost proposal. Part 4 refers to “Policies and Procedures”.

Does USAID intends to have organizations with an approved NICRA to submit these documents that may comprised of hundreds of page as part of the cost proposal? Please clarify.

Response: Page 95 of the RFP has been changed to state, “Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the Offeror will submit policies and procedures, especially regarding salary scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel, procurement and per diem regulations, etc., as they relate to this project.”

Amendment #1

93. Page 90 – past performance a) offers must provide past performance information for each major subcontractor whose cost equals 20% or more of the total proposed cost.

Please clarify whether the stipulation that grants to US organizations are not to exceed $100,000 pertains to consortium partners as well.

Response: This statement does not apply to consortium partners.

94. P. 35 of the RFP states that the construction assessment must be submitted 90 days after contract award. p. 37 of the RFP states that “the baseline report shall be conducted after the Contractor has secured an approved Activity M&E Plan but within 6 months of contract award.”

Recognizing that the baseline assessment will be critical for developing an appropriate construction assessment, would USAID consider moving the due date of the construction assessment to within 6 months of contract award?

Response: The RFP has been modified to change the construction assessment due date to 6 months after contract award.

95. P. 90 – Annex C of the RFP asks for 5 most recent and relevant contracts for similar to work in subject proposal.

Would USAID accept past performance references for cooperative agreements of similar complexity, size and scope?

Response: USAID will accept past performance references for both Contracts and Cooperative Agreements of similar complexity, size and scope.

96. Can proposals include items in the annex not included in the list of required annex components on page 88?

Response: No. Whatever offerors want to submit should be fitted in the acceptable annexes.

97. Can proposals include letters of support from collaborating organizations or should letters be limited to subcontractors?

Response: Letters included in the proposal are limited to those from subcontractors, grantees and/or consortium members.

98. Can USAID confirm if there is a required format for Annex C (Offeror/subcontractor past performance matrix)?

Response: There is no required format for presenting Annex C.

Amendment #1

99. Page 93 of the RFP states “Salaries and wages shall be proposed in accordance with the Offeror’s personnel policies.” Section H.21 of the RFP (page 54) states that TCNs and CCN’s must abide by the Uganda Mission Local…