SOL-617-16-000013_Amendment_1.pdf

SOL-617-16-000013 Amendment No. 01 – Page 2 of 6

Questions and Answers

Technical Questions:

Questions 1: Does USAID/Uganda anticipate primary data collection for this activity?

Answer 1: If target information is not in the National systems, primary data collection will be needed. This will fall under the “Target/Goal 15: Conduct Data Analysis and Special Studies of

USAID interest: Studies, assessments, primary data collection, modeling or other data acquisition activities are conducted to fill in any gap in USAID data needs” on page 28 of the RFP.

USAID/Uganda does NOT expect primary data collection on the majority of indicators.

Questions 2: For work involving interagency coordination and data quality, does this include CDC sites?

Answer 2: Activities for work involving interagency coordination is divided into two distinct levels

(1) work that involves actions at the National level and (2) work that drills down to district and site levels. Interagency coordination work at the National level cuts across all agencies, including CDC.

Interagency coordination and all other work done at the district and site level will be limited to

USAID and DOD districts/sites.

Questions 3: Regarding “Goal 1: Provide quality and timely data for PEPFAR Program Planning and

Reporting”: What type of database is the MEEPP-II database? How is data currently moved into and out of the database? What potential methods (API’s, Direct Queries, etc.) can be used to access the

MEEPP-II database?

Answer 3: The MEEPP-II database is a DHIS2 system customized to meet PEPFAR needs. It sits on a Java platform similar to the national HMIS and PEPFAR/OGAC’s DATIM. Some of the data is imported directly from the national HMIS while some data is entered by implementing partners directly, through a web portal. Accessing MEEPP-II database requires a password. Once in the database, a user can download data onto Excel and other standard software.

Questions 4: Regarding “Goal 12: Analyze “Leaks” in the Cascade”: What is the reporting and analytic tool currently being used?

Answer 4: None. This is a new task.

Questions 5: Regarding “Goal 15: Conduct Data Analysis and Special Studies for USAID Interest.”

Could USAID provide an example of a special study conducted in the past? Currently, what software are used to conduct special studies?

Answer 5: USAID does not require any particular software to conduct special studies. A special study can range from analysis of secondary data to design and implementation of a complex health

SOL-617-16-000013 Amendment No. 01 – Page 3 of 6 evaluation, operations research or other implementation science study. Two examples of special studies conducted in the past are:

1) Use of routine PMTCT program data for surveillance of HIV Prevalence: A rigorous analysis of existing multi-year time series data -

2) OVC Outcome indicator survey: Primary data collection involving design, sampling, data collection, data processing, analysis and report writing

Questions 6: Regarding Page 14: Half way down “1) Implement and maintain a comprehensive

PEPFAR program performance management and reporting system, and harmonize, and where feasible transition, parts of this USG-led function to national systems”: Could USAID provide more detail about what is meant by “harmonize, and where feasible transition, parts of the USG-led function to national systems”? Does this mean the PEPFAR data system currently managed by

MEEPP-II will be transitioned partially or wholly to GOU?

Answer 6: Yes, transition of primary data collection from public health facilities for use in PEPFAR data systems to GOU systems is ongoing. Harmonize as used here means align or synchronize with

GOU systems.

Questions 7: Regarding “Page 17: Requirement 4 half way down page The Contractor will review the evaluation reports and ensure utilization of lessons learned from implementation of MEEPP-I and

MEEPP-II”: Only MEEPP-I evaluation is available on the Development Clearinghouse. Will USAID be providing the final evaluation to offerors?

Answer 7: Attached please find a draft of the executive summary of the evaluation of MEEP II. The report will not be finalized until November. At that time it will be uploaded to the DEC.

Questions 8: Regarding “Page 20: Target Goal 2, Description/Activities The contractor shall access, mine, process and analyze data from District Health Information Software-2 (DHIS-2) and other sources to meet PEPFAR data needs, specifically for Country Operational Plan (COP) planning, and quarterly reports or as and when needed”: Does the current DHIS-2 system house all required disaggregations of PEPFAR MER indicators (e.g. by age, sex, risk population, etc.)?

Answer 8: No. Some disaggregations are lacking in the national HMIS/DHIS2 system. The

Contractor will be required to find ways to meet OGAC requirements. PEPFAR interagency Strategic

Information Technical Working Group will be available to provide guidance to the contractor.

Questions 9: Regarding “Page 22: Target goal 5, Description/Activities The Contractor shall learn and understand specifications and requirements of the EMR system approved by GOU and work with respective USAID IPs to acquire knowledge, skills, equipment and software to develop, deploy, evaluate, improve and sustain the system in a minimum of one hundred USAID/Uganda-supported sites”: At what stage of development is the current EMR system approved by GOU? Has it already

SOL-617-16-000013 Amendment No. 01 – Page 4 of 6 been deployed to some PEPFAR sites? What is the software used (i.e. developed in-house, off-the-shelf software, iSante, etc.)?

Answer 9: Uganda uses Open MRS for patient care Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system. The system uses open source software that has a global support with users participating in the maintenance. Open MRS is GOU-approved. CDC as the lead agency for the national roll out of EMR is responsible for version control and other standard operating procedures. Both CDC and USAID implementing partners have already rolled out EMR to over 300 health facilities.

Questions 10: Regarding “Page 24: Target Goal 8, Description/Activities HMIS and OVCMIS improved and utilized in a minimum of 100 priority sites where USAID PEPFAR activities are implemented”: In how many of the 100 target sites have the HMIS and OVCMIS already been deployed?

Answer 10: All sites where USAID PEPFAR activities are implemented have deployed HMIS and/or

OVCMIS as relevant

Questions 11: Regarding “Goal 8: Improve HMIS and OVCMIS in Selected Districts”: What specifically is meant by "Improve HMIS and OVCMIS" in Target Goal 8? Does this target refer to any specific priority focus areas?

Answer 11: "Improve HMIS and OVCMIS" means the two systems should provide more quality data and achieve measurable increase in utilization of the data USAID’s five key data quality standards are: Validity, Reliability, Precision, Integrity and Timeliness.

Contractual and Administration Questions:

Questions 12: The Branding and Marking Plan is required to be submitted per section L.9 of the solicitation, but there is no corresponding Annex listed. Can the offeror submit the Branding and

Marking Plan in an additional annex to the technical proposal? Is there a page limit?

Answer 12: Please include the Branding and Marking Plan as Annex 8. There is no page limit for this document.

Questions 13: Is the Past Performance section included in the 25 page limit, or is the guidance that this section should not exceed 3 pages excluded from the 25 page limit?

Questions 14: Can USAID/Uganda extend the page limit for the Past Performance Matrix in order to include past performance from major subcontractors?

Answer 13/14: The past performance section is hereby extended to 6 pages. The Past Performance section does not count towards the 25 page limit for the Technical Approach.

SOL-617-16-000013 Amendment No. 01 – Page 5 of 6

Questions 15: Annex 4: Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel mentions that each “applicant must include a statement signed by each person proposed as Key Personnel confirming their intention to serve in the stated position and their present availability to serve for the term of the proposed activity”.

Answer 15: That is correct.

Questions 16: Is there a page limit for Annex 7: ESRS and Small Business Utilization?

Answer 16: There is no page limit for this Annex.

Questions 17: Can you tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

Questions 18: I am wondering if an incumbent exists for the potential requirement: USAID’s

Strategic Information Technical Support Activity outlined under SOL61716000013. If so, could you please provide the following information: Vendor name, Contract number, Value, Date of award, and Expiration date?

Answer 17/18: This is a new activity. However the MEEP-II SOW is similar. That contract is held by

Social Scientific Systems and the current end date is December 28, 2016.

Questions 19: Would USAID please confirm if bidders on USAID’s Strategic Information Technical

Support Activity (SOL-617-16-000013) would be precluded from implementing future

USAID/PEPFAR activities that may interface with this project and the performance management systems that it will be designing and implementing? Given the impact of this response on bidders’ consideration of potential conflict of interest in their decisions to pursue, would USAID consider responding to this question urgently?

Answer 19: As the Contractor will be involved in developing the PEPFAR Country Operational Plan

(COP), the Contractor will be precluded from bidding on future PEPFAR related health activities.

Questions 20: Regarding “Section M 1 (b), M.2 - Technical Evaluation Factors for Award, Page 117-

120”: The evaluation criteria in Section M.1 states the Government reserves the right to make an award to other than lowest price Offeror or to the Offeror with the highest technical score if the

Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. Please clarify the TEC scoring methodology that will be used for evaluating the Technical elements presented in RFP section M.2 in descending order of importance, as the RFP evaluation criteria does not provide the assigned scores/ratings.

Answer 20: As per section M.2 of the RFP, the elements have been presented in descending order of importance.

SOL-617-16-000013 Amendment No. 01 – Page 6 of 6

Questions 21: Page 109 of the RFP states that “Employment information should include supervisors’ contact details.” Is it possible not to include this information because many places of employment only allow their Human Resources Office, and not current or past supervisors, to provide references or information in relation to current and past employees unless the employee has directly provided the reference? We will be providing three references provided by each proposed candidate.

Answer 21: When at all possible, please include the name of the proposed candidate’s supervisor.

Questions 22: Can USAID/Uganda confirm it is possible to include an Acronym List after the Table of Contents that does not count against the page limit?

Answer 22: USAID is confirming that the Acronym List does not count against the page limit.

Questions 23: Could USAID/Uganda please confirm that offerors may submit detailed line item budget explanations as part of the cost narrative rather than in the excel budget file as suggested in the template provided as attachment J.2?

Answer 23: Yes, Offerors may submit a detailed line item budget as part of the cost narrative.

Questions 24: Regarding: “Section H.17, Employment cost for CCN and TCN”: Please provide a copy of current Uganda Mission Local Compensation Plan in order for offerors to propose/comply with the RFP section H.17 requirements.

Answer 24: Please see the attached summary of the US Embassy Local Compensation Plan for

Uganda.