Amendment_03_-_Lango.pdf

Amendment No. 03 - Page 2 of 14 SOL-617-16-000011, RHITES N. Lango

(1) On page 82 of the RFP, Section L.8; Part 2; (1) Summary Budget is amended to hereby include the following:

“The summary budget must be formula driven and roll up from the detailed tabs.”

(2) On page 82 of the RFP, Section L.8; Part 2; (3) Detailed Budget is amended to hereby include the following:

“The detailed budget must be formula driven with unlocked cells with visible formulas. Please note that all budgets for subcontractors must be linked to the summary budget.”

(3) On page 17-18 of the RFP, section F.5, the following is hereby deleted:

Title Due Date Approver

Year One: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures September 30 COR

Year Two: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures September 30 COR

Year Three: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures September 30 COR

Year Four: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures September 30 COR

Year Five: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures September 30 COR

And is replaced in lieu with:

Title Due Date Approver

Year One: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures October 30 COR

Year Two: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures October 30 COR

Year Three: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures October 30 COR

Year Four: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures October 30 COR

Year Five: Performance Objectives and Reports Schedule

PEPFAR Program Expenditures October 30 COR

(4) On page 1 of Attachment J.15; USAID RHITES N. Acholi Mandatory Indicators the following in hereby deleted:

Therefore, the award fee will be linked to achievement of Core Indicators (highlighted in yellow below and pulled out in a summary table).

Amendment No. 03 - Page 3 of 14

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

TECHNICAL

Q 1. The RHITES-N Lango targets in the Mandatory Indicator list (Attachment J.15) do not seem to correspond with current baselines. Can USAID please clarify the source data and if they apply only to this project?

A 1. Data source is located in the table on pages 2-16 in J.15. Most data sources are Health Management

Information System (HMIS), although some are Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) or data the

Implementing Partner would be collecting itself.

Q 2. Attachment J.15 – USAID RHITES Mandatory Indicators are exactly the same for Lango and

Acholi regions. Targets (page 1 and 2) are also just exactly the same. Is this correct? Should the targets and baseline figures not be specific to the regions?

A 2. The RHITES N. Lango Indicators are correct. The indicators for RHITES N. Acholi have been corrected.

Q 3. On page 1 of the Statement of Objectives (Attachment J.01), USAID indicates that RHITES-N

Lango will target public and private facilities but does not provide any clarification on the level of facility. Could you clarify whether the program will cover all levels from community to regional facilities?

A 3. Page 1 of the Statement of Objectives reads, “Support will target public, private, and private-not-for profit facility level and community level health care platforms”.

Q 4. Please confirm that a BMBS (Bachelors of Medicine Bachelors of Surgery) degree is equivalent to a Master’s degree for the purposes of key personnel, specifically the Health System Service

Delivery Position.

A 4. No, this is not considered a Master’s degree.

Q 5. As discussed in the bidder’s conference, can USAID please confirm that a Bachelor of

Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBChB) degree is equivalent to a Master’s degree for the purposes of key personnel, specifically the Director, Health Systems Service Delivery position?

A 5. No, this is not considered a Master’s degree.

Q 6. Page 14 and page 80 of the RFP refer to a “results framework” Could USAID provide this document?

A 6. USAID will not be providing this document.

Q 7. Will USAID allow procurement of relatively small amounts of essential lifesaving commodities as a buffer to avoid stock outs.

Amendment No. 03 - Page 4 of 14

A 7. Yes, within reason. However, these will need prior approval.

Q 8. Will USAID allow procurement of basic equipment to improve quality of available services

(e.g. postpartum IUD kits)?

A 8. Yes, within reason. However, these will need prior approval.

Q 9. The RFP does not explicitly mandate that we work with Regional Referral Hospitals. Do

Regional Referral Hospitals fall within the scope of this work? Or should we leave them out of the approach?

A 9. Regional Referral Hospitals (RRH) are an important part of the health system, and are major contributors to outputs of essential clinical care. RRH provide preventive, promotive outpatient curative, maternity, inpatient, emergency surgery and blood transfusion and laboratory services - in addition to oversight and mentoring of lower level facilities. They will likely be an important part in meeting the targets listed in the RFP.

Q 10. Is the Performance Work Statement (PWS) the entire Technical Volume, inducing technical annexes (AMELP, Work Plan, and QASP)? Or is it only considered Section 1 Technical Approach and Section 2. Management Approach and Staffing?

A 10. The PWS is a stand-alone document that will ultimately form the body of the contract. We are also asking for additional documents such as the AMELP, Work Plan, and QASP as they provide information regarding how each Offeror will implement the activities. All of those documents will be evaluated under the Technical Approach (section 1).

Q 11. Please clarify USAID’s expectation for the first paragraph under section 1 Technical approach (on page 79). The first paragraph states:

The Offeror should provide a Performance Work Statement (PWS) describing its approach, methodologies, and activities to meet the described objectives in Attachment J.1. In its PWS, the

Offeror shall propose a methodology and set of activities with a compelling analysis of the problem that provides an in-depth understanding of the development challenges in Northern Uganda as well as outlines specific activities and explains how the proposed activities will lead directly to achievement of results. The Offeror is required to include the stated results (including mandatory indicators with targets; see Attachment J.15) in their PWS. Offerors may include additional results including contextual indicators with targets including a short justification on how the Offeror determined these targets. The Offeror may include additional results and additional indicators to measure them, e.g. Custom Indictors. In addition to these items, the Offeror must provide a table of performance objectives and description thereof, and the anticipated date performance objective will be met (in terms of the number of days from contract award).

For the first italicized sentence: The Offeror is required to include the stated results (including mandatory indicators with targets; see Attachment J.15) in their PWS

Amendment No. 03 - Page 5 of 14

Are we required to include the mandatory indicators (both core and custom as per J.15 language, total of 11 pages for J.15) with targets in Section 1. Technical Approach under each sub-purpose of result area?

OR

Is it USAID’s intention that we include this information on mandatory core and contextual indicators (as well as some custom indicators), including the related performance objectives (sub-purpose or sub IR), indicators for measuring them targets, dates of completion, etc. in Annex 1?

Annex 1, the AMELP, usually includes the standard performance management plan (PMP) table including core, contextual, and custom indicators measuring performance with targets/timeline by result area.

AND

If USAID wants the indicators (core and contextual) in section 1. Technical Approach, what does

USAID envision will be in the AMELP annex? Would this then only be the narrative supporting our AMELP process under this activity?

A 11. Page 79 of the NFO details what should be in the Technical Approach. The Offeror is required include states results in their performance work statement (PWS), as well as indicators and targets for measuring these results - including a justification for any targets not already predetermined by USAID

(e.g. core indicators). If the Offeror wishes to justify different targets than those USAID has provided, Offerors must provide a justification for this adjustment. The narrative of the Offeror’s PWS should support the indicators that are being used to measure the activity.

Q 12. For the sentence: In addition to these items, the Offeror must provide a table of performance objectives and description thereof, and the anticipated date performance objective will be met (in terms of the number of days from contract award). This table sounds like the indicator table tied to sub-purpose and intermediate result area which usually is within Annex 1. AMELP. Please help the

Offeror understand what this table is and how it is different from the AMELP performance management plan table? Is it the AMELP performance management plan table? Or is it akin to F

15 table on reports/performance objectives (pp 16-19 in the RFP)? Or is it more like a milestone table associated with each sub-purpose result area and the Offeror’s technical approach to achieving results? Also please help the Offeror understand if it should be within Section 1.

Technical Approach or as an Annex, as part of the AMELP (Annex 1) and potential part of the

QASP (Annex 8).

A 12. The table described on page 70 of the instructions “In addition to these items, the Offeror must provide a table of performance objectives and a description thereof, and the anticipated date the performance objective will be met” is more akin to a milestone table or GANTT chart. The Activity

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP) should contain much more detail, including data sources, how the activity will collect/collate/acquire data. Per the AMELP name, it should list any evaluation and learning efforts the activity proposes to pursue. Per page 79 (instructions) and 91

(evaluation criteria), the Offeror’s approach to learning and adapting through activity implementation is

Amendment No. 03 - Page 6 of 14 an important part of an Offeror’s technical approach. The Technical Approach should track with the

AMELP. The QASP is a larger approach, which includes elements listed on page 12, of which, reporting on the AMELP would be part (e.g. Please see the list of mechanisms on page 12 of the RFP, specifically sections c, f, and g).

Q 13. On page 80 of the RFP it states that Annex 1- Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning

Plan can be a maximum of 5 pages in length. Listing the 66 mandatory indications in J.15 (11 pages in J.15) by result area would easily put us over the page limit for the table only. We would like to be able to add language on our approach for RHITES monitoring, evaluating, and we’d also like to include a few Custom indicators related to our unique approach. Would USAID considered increasing the page limit for the AMELP Annex to accommodate the above?

A 13. No. This five page AMELP will not be the final AMELP, but will be used as an illustrative annex, enabling USAID to better understand the Offeror’s approach and what indicators will be used to measure progress. Offeror’s should be able to link results to their activity framework within five pages. While 66 indicators are mandatory, the Offeror should focus on core indicators and whatever additional indicators

(e.g. custom) the Offeror would like to measure.

Q 14. On page 1 of Attachment J.1, the purpose of the proposal states: Working through a life-cycle lens, over five years this contract is expected to contribute to measurable improvements in key population-based national health indicators. Can it be assumed that the intention was to refer to key and affected population-based health indicators?

A 14. The intention is that this activity works through a life-cycle lens to contribute to measurable improvements in key populations based health indicators such as reducing maternal mortality and under-five mortality. Per page 8 of the SOO, the Offeror must conduct a gender, youth, and social inclusion analysis to inform how to best reach these key sub-populations.

Q 15. The RFP does not mention immunization. Should it be presumed that immunization should not be a component of the technical response?

A 15. No. Immunization (Percent of children <1 years immunized) is a core indicator (see J. 15). How the Offeror addresses immunization is dependent on their technical approach.

Q 16. Attachment J.1, C.3, Background, p. 11: Would USAID be able and willing to release the current draft version of the results framework for the CDCS 2.0, 2016-2021?

A 16. The results framework for the CDCS 2.0 is pending approval. If approved by Washington prior to the closing of this solicitation, USAID/Uganda will issue an amendment releasing the framework as an attachment.

Q 17. Section F.6.5, Anthropologist/Behavior Change/Marketing Specialist, p. 20: Please confirm that, pending approval from USAID, the Offeror may alter the position title of the above-mentioned key personnel to Anthropologist/Behavior Change/Marketing Director.

Amendment No. 03 - Page 7 of 14

A 17. Yes

CONTRACTUAL/ADMIN/BUDGETING

Q 18. On page 10 of the Acholi RFP. The Offeror isn’t required to procure any of the following commodities (please see RFP for all). However, this not is not provided in the Lango RFP? Is the

Offeror expected to procure commodities?

A 18. The Contractor will not be expected to procure any of the following commodities, as they will be provided through existing USAID procurement mechanisms: ARVs and OI drugs, contraceptive commodities, ACTs and RDTs, bed-nets, and Ready to Use therapeutic foods (RUTF). RHITES-N, Lango will work with USAID, the GOU, and other partners as applicable to ensure adequate supplies of commodities to achieve stated results.

Q 19. For budgeting purposes, could USAID please provide the anticipated starting date for

RHITES-N Lango?

A 19. We estimate it will start around July-September 2017.

Q 20. Can USAID please provide the estimated project start date?

A 20. We estimate it will start around July-September 2017.

Q 21. The RFP does not include a start date, can you please confirm the start date for our budgeting purposes?

A 21. We estimate it will start around July-September 2017.

Q 22. As discussed in the bidder’s conference, for budget purposes, can USAID please re-confirm the start date.

A 23. We estimate it will start around July-September 2017.

Q 24. Please confirm the due date of the proposal: Saturday, January 14 th

2017.

A 24. Yes, that is correct.

Q 25. Section I.5, Source and Nationality Requirements, p. 59: Please confirm that the Contractor of this activity will be required to procure commodities that qualify as equipment, materials, vehicles, supplies and services, including commodity transportation services.

A 25. This will depend on the Offeror’s approach. The Contractor has the option to procure commodities that qualify as equipment, materials, vehicles, supplies and services, including commodity transportation services (outside of those already listed on page 6 of the SOO). Per this note, RHITES-N Lango will work with USAID, the GOU, and other partners as applicable to ensure adequate supplies of commodities to achieve stated results.

Amendment No. 03 - Page 8 of 14

Q 26. Section I.5, Source and Nationality Requirements, p. 59: Please confirm that the Contractor cannot procure any medicine or commodities that do not qualify as equipment, materials, vehicles, supplies and services, including commodity transportation services.

A 26. The Contractor is allowed to procure certain commodities on a limited basis. However, these will need prior approval.

Q 27. On page 78, the RFP states: The technical proposal must be organized by the technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M. This section does not provide any guidance - is there any additional information that can be provided to organize the technical proposal?

A 27. The technical evaluation criteria are 1) Technical Approach 2) Management Approach and Staffing

Plan, and 3) Past Performance. The PWS should be organized by these categories, with the Annexes listed on page 79 accompanying the PWS.

Q 28. Page 81 of the RFP indicates Past Performance as a separate section denoted by the number

3. Can USAID please clarify whether a Past Performance narrative is a separate section of the

Performance Work Statement or whether it is part of an Annex?

A 28. The past performance section should be included as part of Annex 6.

Q 29. Page 88 of the RFP states that offerors “Must submit and negotiate a Branding

Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP)”. The RFP also states that “plans will be requested of offerors in the competitive range”. Can USAID confirm that a Branding

Implementation Plan and Marking Plan are not required as part of the initial technical or cost proposal?

A 29. A Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan is not required as part of the initial technical or cost proposal. This will be required at the Competitive Range stage.

Q 30. Do we need to include the Branding and Marking Plan in our proposal?

A 30. A Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan is not required as part of the initial technical or cost proposal. This will be required at the Competitive Range stage.

Q 31. Section L.9, Branding and Marking Plan, p. 88: Considering the heightened security situation in northern Uganda, please confirm that implementers may use their own discretion, based on security intelligence from USAID and other viable sources, to decide where and when to display

USAID’s logo on implementer vehicles, particularly in certain high-risk areas.

A 31. Branding and Marking Plans, including the branding of vehicles, must be approved by USAID.

Q 32. H.12(a) on page 32 states that "Direct compensation of the Contractor's personnel shall be in accordance with the Contractor's established policies...". However H20(e) on page 35 of the RFP

Amendment No. 03 - Page 9 of 14 specifies that the Contracting Officer must approve all annual salary increases. H20(e) contradicts

H.12(a) and is also not a requirement in AIDAR. Can USAID please clarify?

A 32. Section H.20(e) takes precedents over H.12(a).

Q 33. On page 29 of the RFP, the eighth bullet states "No cash or in kind grants will be made to the

Government of Uganda, including regional and district level authorities." However, the final, thirteenth bullet, states "Grants to local governments must be provided in-kind. The Contractor is not authorized to provide funds to the Ugandan Government". This appears to be a contradiction, please clarify.

A 33. In kind grants to the Government of Uganda are allowable under this mechanism, and should be adequately justified. There will be no cash grants payable to the GoU.

Q 34. Section H.7, Grants Under Contract, p. 29: “No cash or in-kind grants will be made to the

Government of Uganda, including regional and district level authorities.” Later on the same page, the RFP states “Grants to local governments must be provided in-kind.” Please confirm that only in-kind grants to local governments are permitted under this contract.

A 34. In kind grants to the Government of Uganda are allowable under this mechanism, and should be adequately justified. There will be no cash grants payable to the GoU.

Q 35. Section H.30, Allowable USG Funding Support for GOU Entities and Staff, p. 43 and

Attachment J.14: Please confirm the level of contributed funding that is allowable to use beyond the regional-level, i.e., in support of national-level activities.

A 35. The Allowable USG Funding Support for GOU Entities and Staff details the allowable per diem rates for GOU officials. It describes rates for use when GOU officials travel to Kampala, District

Headquarters Towns, Sub County and Local Government levels. Allowances provided for officials traveling in support of national level activities would be provided depending on where the national level activities occur (e.g. in Kampala, sub county or other) and the distance the official travels.

Q 36. Is it required that the Offeror uses the budget template provided as an attachment in Section

J (J.6), page 62 of the RFP, or can the Offeror use its own organization's template so long as it incorporates all components of the budget template provided?

A 36. Offeror’s can use their own budget template as long as it incorporates all components of the template and all requirements in section L. Please remember that the budget should be formula driven and unlocked with formulas visible.

Q 37. Section B.8 (page 8) and the table at Section I.1.1 (page 54) reference FAR 52.217-2

Cancellation under Multiyear Contracts. However, the matrix included at FAR 52.301 indicates that FAR 52.217-2 is not applicable for a “cost reimbursable service” type contract. Could USAID please confirm that multi-year contracting and cancellation is not applicable for this CPFF services

Amendment No. 03 - Page 10 of 14 contract, and therefore the offeror need not submit proposed cancellation ceilings (as directed in

Section L.8, Part 2(2), page 82)?

A 37. USAID has noted your question and has referred your question to USAID/Washington. For the time being, please propose a cancellation ceiling, however, based on guidance from USAID/Washington this may or may not become part of the final award.

Q 38. On page 8 of the solicitation (under section B.8) it states that “[amount and dates to be filled in at the time of award]”. However, later in the RFP, on page 82 of the solicitation (under section

(2) Cancellation Ceilings), the solicitation states that: “Offeror must submit a table with proposed cancellation ceilings, including cancellations charges and non-recurring costs for each year” Are cancellation ceilings to be proposed at the time of award or submitted with the cost proposal?

Please clarify.

A 38. Cancellation ceilings are to be submitted with the cost proposal. Section B.8 will ultimately be part of the award contract and will be completed at the time award with the cancellation ceilings that have been negotiated with the Successful Offeror.

Q 39. Section F.6.3 of the RFP (page 20) lists the minimum requirements for the Director of

Finance and Administration. The last bullet reads “Experience in managing donor funded procurements and subcontracts/grants; and” – indicating that another bullet may have been intended to follow. Please confirm that no requirements are missing.

A 39. We confirm no requirements are missing.

Q 40. Section M.2 Evaluation criteria on page 90 of the RFP states “the below criterion appear in descending order of importance with the first criterion as most important.” Can USAID please provide a percentage weight or point allocation for each of the three criterion.

A 40. The section will remain as written.

Q 41. What are the difference between the organizational chart and the staffing plan/chart? This is located on page 81 under Annex 3. Can you describe the differences between the two illustrations?

Can they be combined?

A 41. An organizational chart is a diagram that shows the structure of an organization and the relationships and relative ranks of its parts and positions/jobs. This includes how partners will interact/report with each other. A staffing plan shows the number of people/type of positions that will be hired.

Q 42. On page 80 of the RFP, USAID asks for three charts: organizational charts showing lines of reporting among long term team members, a second chart that will demonstrate the relationship between the offeror and other offices, and a third chart will be a staffing plan showing title sand names that will form part of the activity team. Is it possible that the first and the third chart can be combined?

Amendment No. 03 - Page 11 of 14

A 42. It is possible for the two charts to be combined, just be sure to include all the necessary information.

Q 43. On page 81, Annex 4 there is a 15 page limit. The explanation requires submission of biodata forms for all Key Personnel. Do Bio data forms count against the 15 page limit?

A 43. No, they do not. Bio data forms should be submitted with the cost proposal.

Q 44. Section L.8 “Budget,” page 83: “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”.

Please confirm that the Offeror is only required to submit Biographical Data Sheets for Key

Personnel who are expatriates or cooperating country nationals.

A 44. Please include bio data forms for all named personnel. Please note that all bio data forms should only be included in the cost proposal.

Q 45. On page 81 of the RFP in the past performance section, it indicates that the PPRs must be submitted for all major subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed 20% of the total proposed cost.

Does the total proposed cost include the $8 million for projected grants?

A 45. Yes, it does.

Q 46. On page 28, under the criteria for grants, the RFP suggests that USAID must be included in the selection of grantees. On page 84 of the cost proposal section, the RFP asks that the offeror must provide information on each grantee. So do all grantees need to be identified during the proposal writing process? Please Clarify.

A 46. Offerors do not need to identify all grantees at the time of the proposal. However, if they are not listed in the proposal with sufficient detail, the successful Offeror will need to seek Contracting Officer

Approval prior to issuing grants.

Q 47. On page 7 it says there is $8 million for Grants Under Contract, this does not include subcontract funding for proposed consortium partners, right?

A 47. On page 7 it says there is “up to” $8 million available for Grants Under Contract. This does not include subcontract funding.

Q 48. As discussed in the bidder’s conference, can USAID please re-confirm that grants can be budgeted as a pool rather than proposing specific named grantees at this stage?

A 48. Yes, this is correct. As a reminder, the CO will need to approve actual grantees.

Q 49. EA (Expenditure Analysis) is done Sept 30 (page 17), experience shows that this is not possible as reports for September are normally completed in October.

A 49. We changed the due date of this report to Oct 30 th

Amendment No. 03 - Page 12 of 14

Q 50. On page 5 of attachment J.1, under sub-purpose 1, the RFP mentions “small scale renovations of existing health facilities may be necessary.” Please define what “small scale renovation” is and is there a funding amount that should be allocated to this activity?

A 50. Small scale renovations include, but are not limited to: replacing windows, fixing floors, painting, creating a waiting area within an existing structure. It does not include building a structure from the ground up. There is no plug figure for this activity.

Q 51. When we try to open attachments J.2 and J.9 using the hyperlinks provided on page 62 of the

RFP, we get the following error “Page not found”. Could you please provide access to those two attachments.

A 51. These were updated in Amendment 2.

Q 52. On page 62, the RFP provides a link to Attachment J. 7 Identification of Principal

Geographic Codes which does not work. Can you please provide an updated link?

A 53. USAID has taken down the stand alone document on Identification of Principal Geographic Codes.

Please review ADS 260 (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/260.pdf) for more information on the Geographic Codes.

Q 54. Section H.13 makes it sound like we are capped at offering a salary above what was last paid to the employee. Please clarify.

A 54. The clause does not cap salaries at what they were previously making. Offerors can propose an increase to an employee’s previous salary, however, it will require Contracting Officer (CO) approval. If you are proposing an increase, please provide a rationale in the budget narrative.

Q 55. On page 6 of Attachment J.1, under section C.5, the RFP mentions “Public-Private partnerships are encouraged. Information about such partnerships, or Global Development

Alliances (GDAs), can be found at www.usaid.gov/gda.” The terms “public-private partnerships” and “GDA” are mentioned as if they are the same, however, they are not. Public-private partnerships can be loose and can be based on a memorandum of understanding or another type of collaboration, whereas, a GDA is a specific USAID program that has strict requirements. If possible, please elaborate on the types of PPPs that have been applied in Northern Uganda, and on

GDA PPPs that are active in Uganda.

A 55. USAID encourages all Offerors do as much research as possible on Northern Uganda so that each proposal shows an understanding of what is currently ongoing.

Q 56. On page 91 of the RFP, under Criterion 2: Mgt and Staffing, USAID mentions in the second paragraph LOCs required after mentioning key and non-key staff. Please confirm that USAID wants LOCs from key staff proposed.

A 56. USAID would like Letters of Commitment from the Key Personnel.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/260.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/gda

Amendment No. 03 - Page 13 of 14

Q 57. On page 80 of the RFP, it says 'one of 'the other key personnel' should be designated as

DCOP'. However, there is no 'other key personnel' section in the RFP, there is only a 'key personnel' section. Can USAID confirm if and where the ‘other key personnel’ section is in the

RFP?

A 57. Please nominate someone from your key personnel to also serve as DCOP on your staffing plan

(e.g. dual hat).

Q 58. Page 91 Evaluation Criterion 2 states that the “qualifications of the key and non-key personnel (including letters of commitment)”. Please advise how non-key personnel will feed into the evaluation, is it sufficient to record their details on the staffing matrix.

A 59. In Section L, under Management Approach and Staffing Plan (page 80 of the RFP) states: The

Offeror must explain how the qualifications of the key personnel and non-key personnel will support achievement of results and sound management of the contract.

Q 60. Section B.4, “Budget,” p. 7: Please clarify what the $8,000,000 set-aside for grants under contract can and cannot be used for.

A 60. Up to $8 million can be used for grants under contract. Please read section H.7 of the RFP for what they can and cannot be used for.

Q 61. F.4.8., Quarterly Performance Report (QPR), p. 15: Please confirm the percentage of USG funding for this contract that will come from the different funding mechanisms, e.g., PEPFAR, PMI, and MCH.

A 61. We confirm that this activity will be an integrated activity, receiving at least HIV/AIDS and TB

(PEPFAR and GHP), malaria (PMI), MCH, FP, WASH, and Nutrition funding. We are not able to give specific percentages at this stage.

Q 62. Section H.8, Standards for Accessibility for the Disabled in USAID Construction Contracts, p.

29: Please confirm the total dollar amount or ceiling that may be used for renovation or remodeling of project facilities.

A 62. There is no maximum ceiling for renovation in the RFP.

Q 63. Section L.7.d.(4), Annexes, p. 79: Given the complex and evolving security situation in northern Uganda, please confirm that the Offeror’s Security Awareness and Mitigation Plan may be detailed in a separate annex to more comprehensively demonstrate situational awareness.

A 63. No, this cannot be submitted as a separate annex.

Amendment No. 03 - Page 14 of 14

Q 64. We have not previously submitted information to the eSRS system. Therefore, please advise what information you would like us to include in Annex 7 to the technical response.

A 64. Please review https://www.esrs.gov/ for more information. If no information has previously been submitted, please provide an explanation as to why not, and provide information regarding past use of small businesses.

Q 65. Attachment J.15: USAID/RHITES Lango Mandatory Indicators states “the award fee will be linked to achievement of Core Indicators”. Elsewhere in the solicitation, the contract is repeatedly noted as Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Is the award fee clause in error? If so, could USAID please remove the sentence referencing the award fee?

A 65. This is an error, this will be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Contract, there will be no award fee.

https://www.esrs.gov/