Amendment_-_02_-_SOL-621-14-000017.pdf

RFP No. SOL‐621‐14‐000017, Amendment #2 The Public Sector Systems Strengthening (PS3)

Accordingly, please replace the word “district” with LGAs on Page 17 – bullets nine and ten; Page 18 – last paragraph; Page 19 – first and third bullets; Page 22 – paragraph two; Page 24 – 1.9, and 2.2; Page 25 – the first, fourth, fifth and eighth bullets; Page 28 – the first bullet and second paragraph under Component Three; Page 30

– under indicators, the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth bullet; Page 31 – second bullet; Page 32 – second and third bullets under indicators; Page 34 – last line; Page 45 – paragraph 7 (twice);

Page 47 – third line under AidTracker Plus; Page 51 – eighth line under Deputy Chief of Party for Technical Development; Page 112 – second line under C.2 (twice); Page 113 – second line under C.3; and Page 127– #3 under Technical Approach.

C. On page 50, Section F.6, Key Personnel, please delete the sentence: “All key personnel must be under the Prime

Contractor.” Please insert the following: “The Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party and Operations Research Specialist key personnel positions must be under the Prime Contractor. The remaining two TBD key personnel positions may be under major subcontractors.”

D. On page 51, regarding the Chief of Party, the solicitation is hereby amended to replace “Fluency in KiSwahili” with “Professional Fluency in KiSwahili.

Professional working proficiency is the fourth level of five in the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale of language proficiency, formerly called the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S‐3 or Level 3. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics can discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease has comprehension which is quite complete for a normal rate of speech has a general vocabulary which is broad enough that he or she rarely has to grope for a word has an accent which may be obviously foreign; has a good control of grammar; and whose errors virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker.”

E. Under Section L.5.I. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, (pg. 112): “i”‐ Acronym List, is hereby added to the list of items that are not included in the 30‐page limit.

F. On page 113, No. 4, sixth line, please delete the sentence that begins with “This section … performance‐based monitoring system (PBMS)”. The revised sentence should read as follows: “This section will also embody a clear description of an appropriate, sound, effective and reliable management system for monitoring progress of changes to public sector systems as a result of PS3 intervention (see Component 5); as well as an overview of a monitoring and evaluation plan.”

G. Under E. Section III – Past Performance, d, 3, B, page 115, regarding eSRS, “recent” is being defined as the last year.

H. On page 118, Direct Labor Salaries and Wages, third paragraph, please delete the sentence that begins with

“Additionally,” and replace it with the following: “The Offeror must submit biographical data sheets to support the proposed long term personnel cost of those positions that are expected to exceed $49,000.00 per year, which is approximately the FSN 11, Step 13 under the local compensation plan.”

I. On page 119, under the section entitled consultants, please delete the sentence: “The same level of information required for the Offeror’s personnel must be provided for all consultants.”

J. On page 123, Section L.5.8, Key Personnel, delete the sentence that states: “ Also, the Apparent Successful Offeror will be required to submit a letter of commitment signed by each proposed key personnel, confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position immediately upon award and their present availability to serve for the term of the proposed Contract.”

K. Under Section M.2 Technical Evaluation, Section I – Technical Approach, page 127, delete Sub‐criterion 4, in its entirety and replace with: “4. Extent to which the Offeror’s approach demonstrates a strong rationale for the causal links between its system strengthening interventions and improved system performance, sustainability, as well as achievement of the USAID program objectives. In addition, the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear and concise strategy for monitoring the causal link and a clear, appropriate, and sound management system for monitoring progress of changes to public sector systems as a result of PS3 intervention.”

L. A copy of USAID/Tanzania’s most current FSN pay scale is made available via attachment # J‐9 to this solicitation.

M. The final HRH and SW Strategic Plan 2014‐2019 is being made available via attachment # J‐10 to this solicitation.

N. The Project Area Authorities (PAAs) ranking, as defined by the Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) is being made available via attachment J‐11 to this solicitation.

O. Provide answers to questions submitted by potential offerors.

PS3 Clarification Questions to USAID:

1. Question: Please indicate PS3's total budget ceiling?

Answer: Agency policy prohibits providing a total budget ceiling for a cost reimbursement, LOE‐type contract. Any information regarding the total budget ceiling that was provided in the pre‐solicitation notice should be ignored.

2. Question: Section L.5.8 on Key Personnel states that ‐ Individual key personnel and non‐key personnel should not be identified in the staffing pattern or other places in the technical proposal. No brief biographies should be submitted in the text of the proposal. For purposes of the cost volume, Offerors should use the anticipated rates that represent appropriate compensation for the employee’s qualifications and responsibilities in accordance with the organization’s personnel policies and procedures. Yet Section L.5.2.C regarding preparation of the cost proposal states that “The Offeror will submit Biographical Data Sheets to support the proposed long term personnel costs… The Biographical Data Sheets must be complete and properly certified and signed by both the employee and the Contractor. Should the offerors use sanitized Biographical Data Sheets to reflect the information conveyed in the technical proposal?

Answer: In the Technical Proposal individuals must not be identified as Key Personnel are not part of the technical evaluation of offers. However, in the Cost Proposal, individuals’ names may be included on the bio data sheet as these will not be shared with the Technical Evaluation Committee, but will assist in cost analysis. In accordance with the solicitation, page 118, offerors should provide complete and properly certified bio data sheets that are signed by both the employee and the contractor, as well as supporting evidence to support the labor costs. The

Offeror must submit biographical data sheets to support the proposed long term personnel cost of those positions that are expected to exceed $49,000.00 per year, which is approximately the FSN 11, Step 13 under the local compensation plan. Offerors may wish to consult with an attorney to ensure that their communications with employees in this regard does not result in a legally enforceable employment offer.

In addition, please refer to the answers to questions #6, #7, #15, #42, #44, #51, #56, #67 and/or #81 for more information that is relevant to this question.

3. Question: Please confirm that offerors are to supply a list of PPRs as an annex to the technical proposal.

Answer: Yes. Please refer to (p. 111‐115) Section I: Instructions for the Preparation of Technical Proposal, Sections I and II and III.

4. Question: Can USAID please provide an anticipated start date for PS3?

Answer: The anticipated start date for the PS3 activity is the second or third quarter of FY 2015.

5. Question: Per the Amendment to the Solicitation issued on September 22, 2014 deleting the requirement that the

Chief of Party be a Tanzanian citizen, can USAID also confirm that the requirement for ‘fluency in kiSwahili’ be removed and the requirement for ‘knowledge of Tanzania Public Sector issues’ be instead listed as a preferred qualification?

Answer: Under this solicitation, “Fluency in kiSwahili” is hereby changed to “Professional fluency in KiSwahili.” The

“knowledge of Tanzania Public Sector issues” is not removed from the solicitation.

Professional working proficiency is the fourth level of five in the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale of language proficiency, formerly called the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) scale. This level is sometimes referred to as

S‐3 or Level 3. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics can discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease has comprehension which is quite complete for a normal rate of speech has a general vocabulary which is broad enough that he or she rarely has to grope for a word has an accent which may be obviously foreign; has a good control of grammar; and whose errors virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker.

6. Question: Section L.5.8 of the RFP indicates that the Apparently Successful Offeror will be required to submit information on their proposed key personnel positions, including “a letter of commitment from each key personnel confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position immediately upon award…”. Given the standard US labor practice to provide at least two weeks notification to a current employer and the required practice under the Tanzanian Labor Code to provide 28 days notification to a current employer, this requirement could be seen as creating an unfair advantage for the current employees of an incumbent currently on the ground in Tanzania or candidates not currently employed. Would USAID consider amending the language to reflect the more common requirement “confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position within 30 days of contract award.”?

Answer: The requirement is deleted from the solicitation.

In addition, please refer to the answers to questions #2, #7, #15, #42, #44, #51, #56, #67 and/or #81 for more information that is relevant to this question.

7. Question: Section L.5.8 of the RFP indicates that “for purposes of the cost volume, Offerors should use the anticipated rates that represent appropriate compensation for the employee’s qualifications and responsibilities in accordance with the organization’s personnel policies and procedures. Under Section L.5.2 of the RFP, however, USAID indicates that offerors are required to submit Biographical Datasheets to support long‐term personnel costs. The requirement to include Biographical Datasheets appears inconsistent with USAID’s intention to not include personnel, as an evaluation criteria, during the evaluation of offerors as the inclusion of this information would present an opportunity to review the proposed key personnel of a bidding organization. Would USAID confirm that offerors should maintain completed EBDs for all identified long‐term personnel, home office staff, and independent consultants anticipated to work on the PS3 program in compliance with AIDAR clause 752.7001, but that bidders should not include Biographical Datasheets in the proposal response at this stage?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #2.

Also, please refer to the answers to questions #6, #15, #42, #44, #51, #56, #67 and/or #81 for more information that is relevant to this question.

8. Question: On page 128, the RFP indicates that “the extent to which an offeror’s staffing plan and management approach includes the necessary expertise with the capacity to carry out the proposed approach.” Can USAID kindly clarify how this criteria will be evaluated given personnel should not be named in the proposal?

Answer: Please refer to L. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (pg. 113) and M. Evaluation Factors for Award (pg. 128). Evaluations under this sub‐criterion will be focused on the mix of personnel positions, organizational staffing plans and position qualifications rather than proposed individuals.

9. Question: The requirements for the TBD key personnel position (pg. 52) includes the requirement of “at least 7 years of international experience in development, managing, overseeing, or evaluating public health programs of a similar size and complexity.”

a. Can USAID please confirm that it will find experience managing, overseeing, and working on development programs, in senior‐level positions in relevant public sector agencies, and in the private sector in Tanzania to meet the requirement for international development experience for proposed Tanzanian personnel?

b. Additionally, can USAID define how it will determine a candidate’s experience on a program of “similar size and complexity” given the magnitude of the PS3 program, which is one of the largest efforts to systematically strengthen the public sector within the country?

Answer: A: Yes.

Answer: B: A program of similar size and complexity is a multi‐year, multi‐region, multi‐sectorial activity with a similar level of effort.

10. Question: Given that personnel will not be named in the offeror's initial submission, please clarify the process by which proposed personnel will be approved by USAID.

Answer: The apparently successful offeror will be requested to submit the resumes of all key personnel for USAID’s review and approval. The approved key personnel will then be incorporated into the contract, either prior to, or after contract award.

11. Question: In Section F.6, USAID states that 'all key personnel must be under the prime contractor.' As is common in practice, will USAID permit key personnel to fall under the prime contractor's major subcontractors?

Answer: The Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party and Operations Research Specialist key personnel positions must be under the Prime Contractor. The remaining two TBD key personnel positions may be under major subcontractors.

12. Question: In Section F4.B, workplans, USAID states that the first work plan must be submitted with 45 calendar days of award, in coordination with GOT relevant Ministries and other implementing agents. Please define 'in coordination with' given the compressed time frame for finalizing this work plan and its contents as detailed on page 115 of the RFP.

Answer: Please note that we do not see a reference to the workplans on page 115 as referenced. The workplans are referenced on page 44. The purpose of this contract is to support the Government of Tanzania to strengthen the public system to promote the delivery, quality, and use of services. This activity will only be successful if the Contractor coordinates (i.e. works closely and in consultation) with Government counterparts on all aspects of planning and implementation, including annual workplans.

13. Question: The RFP mentions the use of subcontracts but not grants. Will USAID permit the technical and cost proposals to cover grants?

Answer: Grants under contract are not authorized under the PS3 activity.

14. Question: Please clarify which link in Attachment J.8 contains the template to be used in preparing the PPRs.

Answer: No template was provided. Please see page 114 for Past Performance Instructions.

15. Question: Sections L.5.2.1.D (page 114) and Section L.5.8 states that CVs or names are not required in this submission. Section L.5.2.C states that the Offeror will submit Biographical Data Sheets to support the proposed long‐term personnel costs. Please clarify if Offerors are to name staff and provide Biographical Data Sheets in the

Cost Proposal.

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #2. Also, please refer to the answers to questions #6, #7, #42, #44, #51, #56, #67 and/or #81 for more information that is relevant to this question.

16. Question: PS3 includes a variety of tasks aimed at increasing citizen engagement and public outreach including civic engagement at the district level in local planning processes, monitoring service delivery and social accountability. Grants under contract are a flexible mechanism which could enable implementing partners to work with diverse and locally relevant civil society organizations on these and other similar issues. Will USAID allow offerors to propose grants under contract for PS3?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question # 13.

17. Question: May the offeror submit a cover letter and list of acronyms that will not be included within the 30‐page limit for the Technical Proposal?

Answer: Yes. The cover letter and list of acronyms are not included in the 30‐page limit. Section I, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal is hereby amended to include an acronyms list.

18. Question: Section L.5.1.c notes that “All pages of the technical and cost proposals should be sequentially numbered, and each section separated by a tab.” May we use divider sheets to separate the appendices/annexes from each other and the main proposal text?

Answer: Yes. Please see page 111 of the solicitation.

19. Question: Page 25 of the RFP section “indicators” states “increase percentage of all districts submitting plans that meet and/or exceed CCHP assessment criteria.” Please confirm that the districts that will be measured as part of this indicator are only districts in the 13 targeted regions.

Answer: Yes. See the top of page 23. Only LGAs in the 13 targeted regions will count towards this indicator. Also, please note that where the solicitation states “districts” this should be understood as “LGAs”.

20. Question: Page 27 states “reduced vacancy rates in dispensary and health center level in the most hard to reach areas by 2017” – please clarify how USAID is defining/using “most hard to reach areas.”

Answer: Hard to reach areas equate to strata “A,” “B” and “C” of the Project Area Authorities (PAAs) ranking, as defined by the Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASF). Please see attachment J‐11.

21. Question: Page 35, Section C.3.6 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Analysis states “the contractor must present baselines for each indicator based on the latest information available.” Baseline data for all the mandatory indicators provided in the RFP are not currently available/reliable and will have to be collected during project startup that specifically speak to target areas. Please confirm that baselines and targets are not to be provided as part of the offeror’s proposal but rather after consultation with USAID during project startup.

Answer: Yes, baselines and targets can be finalized in consultation with USAID during project start‐up.

22. Question: Page 35 Section C.3.3 states “PS3 will also be evaluated along with other USAID‐supported system strengthening efforts as part of an overall evaluation for USAID/Tanzania”. Please clarify what type of evaluation

(performance or impact) that will be conducted on PS3.

Answer: USAID has not yet finalized a decision on what type of evaluation will be conducted.

23. Question: Page 113 section L.5 I. C. 4 states “ This section will also embody a clear description of a performance based monitoring system (PBMS)….as well as an overview of a monitoring and evaluation plan.” Can USAID please clarify the difference between a performance‐based monitoring system and the monitoring and evaluation plan?

Please provide more specific guidance as to what is expected from offerors. What specifically should be included in each of these two (PBMS and M&E Plan) documents?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #66.

24. Question: Please confirm that the funding for this procurement is in the range of $65,000,000 ‐ $70,000,000 for this five year program?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #1.

25. Question: Page 45 of the RFP states that “LGAs are expected to be eligible to receive some level of PS3 support…”

– does “support” include the provision of funding in the shape of grants or other agreements as well as technical assistance? Please clarify.

Answer: Support does not include provision of funding to LGAs. Please refer to the answer to question #13.

26. Question: Page 127 includes the technical evaluation criteria for the RFP. However this criterion does not include percentages or weight for the various sections. Would USAID please explain how each section will be weighed against each other to compile a final score?

Answer: Please refer to Section M. 1 General Information, (h) (i) (page 127) which states: “All evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. All sub‐factors are of equal importance.”

27. Question: Is there flexibility in the closing date and time? Would USAID consider an extension to Friday, October

31st?

Answer: The due date for the receipt of proposals is hereby extended from October 16, 2014 to October 22, 2014 at 16:00 EAT. The due date for submission of past performance references is extended from October 9, 2014 to

October 14, 2014 at 16:00 EAT.

28. Question: Page 123 says that the ‘Apparent Successful Offerer’ will be required to sign a commitment letter for each proposed key personnel, is there a timeline for the submission of nominated staff after award? How many days after award will offerer(s) be expected to submit the names of personnel?

Answer: The requested timeline is TBD at the moment, due to the sequential activities in the full and open procurement process. Offerors should be identifying potential key personnel, but not requiring exclusivity arrangements. The successful offeror will be notified by the agency when the required submittal is necessary.

Also please refer to the answers to questions #6 and #10.

29. Question: Would USAID accept recent and relevant experience conducted under a grant or cooperative agreement in addition to experience with contracts?

Answer: The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar scope, complexity/diversity of tasks, and skills/expertise.

30. Question: Page 61 states: “One annual salary increase of not more than 3% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract. Annual salary increases of any kind exceeding these limitations or exceeding the maximum salary rate described above may be granted only with the advance written approval of the contracting officer.” Would USAID consider providing advance written approval of a higher annual salary increase for local staff? IMF data shows an inflation rate of 7.8% in 2014, which doesn’t necessarily include merit increase and is much higher than 3%. Would

USAID exclude cooperating country staff from the maximum annual salary increase of 3%?

Answer: Please see Amendment 01. H4 was deleted.

31. Question: Per page 112 of the RFP, offerors are permitted to include an organizational chart as an annex. Is it permissible to include more than one organizational chart in this annex?

Answer: The program should only have one organizational chart. However, if it takes multiple pages to chart the organizational structure, this is allowed in the annex. Please note, this is not a way to provide additional text and extraneous information that supplements the Technical Proposal.

32. Question: The RFP emphasizes the use of Tanzanian systems, however there is no mention of the regional administrative level within the RFP. How does USAID anticipate the offeror to involve regional administration in project implementation?

Answer: This Contract focuses on strengthening the LGA level, which is directly responsible for the delivery of services. To the extent that this requires liaising with the regional administration, this is permissible.

33. Question: Should the estimated value from the pre‐solicitation, $65‐70 million, be used?

Answer: Please refer to the answers to questions #1 and #24.

34. Question: Will any property, such as furniture, equipment or vehicles be made available from another project?

Answer: No.

35. Question: Can USAID please make available the most current FSN pay scale?

Answer: A copy of USAID/Tanzania’s most current FSN pay scale is made available via attachment # J. 9 to this solicitation.

36. Question: Should we use the DSSR per diem rates, or does USAID want offerors to use other per diem rates given market conditions in Tanzania? If so, would USAID make those rates available? On page 119 it says that blended per diem rates are unallowed, would USAID clarify what is meant by blended per diem rates?

Answer: Offerors should consider the DSSR per diem rates the maximum allowed.

However, should offerors choose to use established rates that are less than the DSSR rates, this is allowable.

37. Question: Is there a bilateral tax agreement between USG and GoT?

Answer: Yes. There is a bilateral tax agreement between the USG and GoT which states as follows:

“5. In order to assure the maximum benefits to the people of the United Republic of Tanzania from the assistance to be furnished hereunder:

(a) Any supplies, materials, equipment or funds introduced into or acquired in the United Republic of Tanzania by the Government of the United States of America, or any contractor financed by that Government, for purposes of any program or project conducted hereunder shall, while such supplies, materials, equipment or funds are used in Tanzania in connection with such a program or project, be exempt from any taxes on ownership or use of property, and any other taxes, investment or deposit requirements and currency controls in the United Republic of Tanzania, and the import, export, purchase, or use of any such supplies, materials, equipment or funds in connection with such a program or project shall be exempt from any tariffs, customs, customs duties, import and export taxes, or taxes on purchase of property, and other taxes or similar charges by the United Republic of Tanzania. No direct tax (whether in the nature of an income, profits, business taxes or otherwise) shall be imposed upon any contractor, not having a regular place of business in East Africa, who is financed by the Government of the United States of America hereunder.”

38. Question: In the component line item budget in section B.4 there is no category for cross‐cutting activities such as management, will USAID allow the Offeror to add a cross‐cutting component?

Answer: Yes, the offeror may add a cross cutting component to the table, if desired.

39. Question: Section B.9.2 on page 15 includes the level of effort for two broad labor categories. Is this provided to illustrate the preferred format for presentation by labor categories, or is it guidance on expected LOE by labor category each year?

Answer: The total level of effort is fixed at 106,582. Should offerors choose to adjust the LOE between the categories, this is acceptable.

40. Question: Per the Level of Effort Table on Page 15, can USAID help offerors to understand the formula that went into compiling the LOE total per year?

Answer: USAID considered the anticipated labor needs of the activity, excluding drivers, security, and other facility management staff. USAID assumed for full‐time staff, 260 work days per year.

41. Question: Per the Level of Effort Table on Page 15, section B.9.2, could USAID provide further guidance on the definition of short‐term staff? Are part‐time employees considered short‐term employees? Are employees that are working 80% time on the project considered short‐term employees?

Answer: As stated in B.9.2, the contractor must devote 106,582 professional LOE to the PS3 activity. Offerors have flexibility in how to organize the labor categories and should present and define as best suited for their technical approach.

42. Question: On page 118 the RFP says “the Offeror will submit Biographical Data Sheets to support the proposed long term personnel costs.” On page 114 the RFP says “no CVS or names are required in this submission. Key personnel and non‐key personnel should not be identified”. On page 61 Section H.4. (f) Initial Salaries in the second sentence it states that “only the salary rates for individuals whose Employee Biographical Data forms were submitted with proposals are approved.” Would USAID please clarify how we should incorporate biodata forms if we should not name long term staff? Are we able to name staff in the cost submission? Should Biodgraphical

Data Sheets also be provided for identified short‐term staff in the business volume submission?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #2.

Also, please refer to the answers to questions #6, #7, #15, #44, #51, #56, #67 and/or #81 for more information

43. Question: Page 118 states the offerors must present LOE using the format provided in this RFP. Does this sentence refer to the LOE breakdown by year on page 15?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #41.

44. Question: On page 119 the RFP says “the same level of information required for the Offeror’s personnel must be provided for all consultants”. Does USAID want to see biographical data sheets for consultants or should the offeror refrain from naming consultants?

Answer: On page 119, under the section entitled consultants, please delete the sentence: “The same level of information required for the Offeror’s personnel must be provided for all consultants.”

45. Question: Will USAID provide further guidance on what is included under professional staff (expatriate and local)?

Are support staff such as drivers and admin staff counted toward the LOE?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #40.

46. Question: Our experience has proven that Tanzanian consultants are paid international consulting rates which are significantly higher than the daily rates that CCN staff receive. Are these rates allowed if we have biographical information sheets to back up these rates?

Answer: Please see the definition of consultant under AIDAR: USAID DEFINITIONS CLAUSE ‐‐ GENERAL

SUPPLEMENT FOR USE IN ALL USAID CONTRACTS (JAN 1990). It is understood that consultant rates and staff salaries will differ. Sufficient supporting data to support cost reasonableness should be provided.

Also, please refer to the answer to question #44.

47. Question: The budget line items listed on starting on page 118 do not list the line items in A Summary Budget on page 117. For example relocation & demobilization does not show up as a separate line on the summary budget nor does marking and branding. Is it OK to include these costs under Other Direct Cost or does USAID expect a separate line for each of the cost categories explained on pages 118‐121?

Answer: Please refer to page 118 of the solicitation which states the minimum items the detailed budget must include. This includes relocation and demobilization costs. If a detailed summary line item does not have a corresponding line item in the budget summary, offerors should note in which line of the summary line these costs are included.

48. Question: What is the NAICS code for this solicitation?

Answer: The NAICS code is: 541990.

49. Question: Section L, page 113, number 3, last sentence states “...transparent selection of all LGAs during two

Phases and how it will involve GOT and all relevant stakeholders.” Could USAID please clarify its expectations for each Phase?

Answer: Please see page 45 of the RFP for a description of the two phases.

50. Question: Per the Payment of Fixed Fee paragraph on page 14, please confirm that the fee for non‐LOE costs will be reimbursed as those costs are incurred and presented on our monthly invoices.

Answer: Fixed Fee is based on total cost, not just LOE.

51. Question: Section L.I.D.2 (page 114) notes, “Individual Key personnel will not be considered during the evaluation of Offerors. Therefore, no CVs or names are required in this submission” and in Section L.5.2.C (page 118), the RFP states “offerors should provide the anticipated rates that represent appropriate compensation for each position’s qualifications and responsibilities in accordance with the organization’s personnel policies and procedures” which is accordance with offerors not having to present personnel in the proposal. However, later in Section L.5.2.C

(page 118), the RFP states that, “the offeror will submit Biographical Data Sheets to support the proposed long term personnel costs.” The requirement of biographical data sheets, although in a separate volume of the proposal, suggests that all long‐term personnel will be considered and that offerors must present a full team to

USAID for consideration.

Would USAID please clarify whether it wants budget estimates based on “appropriate compensation” for all long term personnel based on market research or does it want exact salary costs for every long‐term position based on verified and counter‐signed biodatas?

To note, it has been the offeror’s experience in other African countries that fully signed biodatas constitute a legally enforceable employment offer. Thus, by requiring biodatas from all potential long‐term personnel in a proposal for which their names and resumes will not be included would cause considerable confusion in the local market.

Answer: In accordance with the solicitation, page 118, offerors should provide complete and properly certified bio data sheets that are signed by both the employee and the contractor, as well as supporting evidence to support the labor costs. The Offeror must submit biographical data sheets to support the proposed long term personnel cost of those positions that are expected to exceed $49,000.00 per year, which is approximately the FSN 11, Step 13 under the local compensation plan. Offerors may wish to consult with an attorney to ensure that their communications with employees in this regard does not result in a legally enforceable employment offer.

Also, please refer to the answer to question #2, #6, #7, #15, #42, #44, #56, #67 and/or #81 for more information

52. Question: Can USAID please confirm this organization for the technical volume:

Cover page Table of Contents Executive Summary Section I Technical Approach Section II Management Approach and Staffing Section III Past Performance Section IV Organizational Capacity and Experience

Annex 1: Matrix Summarizing Proposed Personnel Positions and Qualifications Annex 2: Organizational Chart Annex 3: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Annex 4: Branding Implementation Plan/Marking Plan Annex 5: Contractor/major subcontractor Past Performance Listing Answer: The above proposed format is in line with the guidance given on page 112 of the solicitation regarding instructions for preparation of the technical proposal.

53. Question: With reference to the technical proposal sections listed above, can USAID confirm:

a) Whether the Executive Summary can be included outside the 30 page overall limit, respecting any page limit

USAID wishes to set for that Executive Summary.

Answer: The Executive Summary may not be included outside of the 30 page overall limit.

b) Would USAID evaluate a short‐term technical assistance matrix as part of Annex 1 that details the skill areas of the Offeror’s in‐house technical experts from which the PS3 project team may request support?

Answer: Yes; short‐term technical assistance support may be included in your matrix.

c) For Section III, Past Performance, and Annex 5: Can USAID please clarify whether the past performance annex submitted with the technical proposal should be only a list of 10 relevant contracts, or the full past performance reference short‐form. Please also confirm whether prime Offerors may provide past performance references in addition to their own for subcontractors whose budgets will be less than 15% of the total proposed, but who will provide technical leadership for specific components, tasks or activities.

Answer: Offerors must list in the annex up to 10 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. For each of these contracts, provide the information listed in E. Section III – Past Performance, Number 2, page 114.

d) Please confirm what USAID expects to see within the Section III Past Performance within the Technical Proposal (i.e. within 30 page allocation).

Answer: Please see answer above in Question 55c.

e) May Offerors who are not small business concerns include the narrative summary and supplemental information requested on page 115, section (3)(A), (B), and (C) as part of Annex g) Contractor/Major Sub‐ Contractor Past Performance Listing?

Answer: Yes; it is part of the Annex.

f) Regarding Annex 3, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: The P3 RFP (Section C.3.6 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and Analysis; C.4. Gender; Section F. Deliveries of Performance) cites a number of results reporting frameworks and systems, and a number of approaches to presenting data and results (Performance Monitoring Plan, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Contract Monitoring and Evaluation System, Performance‐ Based Monitoring System). Can USAID confirm that Annex 3 to the technical proposal should be limited to an M&E plan for the P3 project, with indicator baselines to be determined with USAID during the first 45 days following award?

Answer: Yes. Also please refer to the answer to Question #21.

g) Would USAID be willing to share how many points are assigned to the evaluation scoring of each proposal section (and subsection) (section M.2)?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #26.

54. Question: Page 15, B.9.2 LEVEL OF EFFORT (a) states that “The Contractor must devote 106,582 person‐days of professional level of effort (LOE) for the following categories of employees: Long‐Term and Short‐Term direct employees and consultants.” The underlying table then divides the type of staff between “Professional Staff

(expatriate and local)” and “Short‐term staff.” Please confirm:

a) “Professional Staff” LOE in the table is reserved for long‐term professional staff to be budgeted full time for the life of the project (LOP).

Answer: Please refer to the answers to questions #40 and #41.

b) The definition for LOE to be included under the allocations for Short‐term staff. For example, does this include?

i. Staff proposed for full time work, but for a less‐than‐ LOP length of time?

Answer: No

ii. International, regional, and local short‐term technical assistance?

Answer: Yes

iii. Headquarters management support?

Answer: It depends on if they are full‐time or not.

55. Question: Page 61, section H.4 (d) states “One annual salary increase of not more than 3% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract.” Given current labor market conditions in Tanzania, to ensure the retention and motivation of staff throughout the life of the project, please consider revising to read “One annual salary increase of not more than 5% (excludes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract.”

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #30.

56. Question: On page 123, section L.5.8 Key Personnel states that “Individual key personnel and non‐key personnel should not be identified in the staffing pattern or other places in the technical proposal,” and that “anticipated rates” should be used in the Cost Proposal rather than an individual’s agreed‐upon rate. However, on page 118, section L.5.2.C. Budget Line Item Definition, guidance for the cost proposal suggests that biodatas are required to support the proposed long‐term personnel costs, however, this will not be possible without disclosing the names of individuals proposed. Please confirm the Offerors are not to name individuals in its Technical or Cost Proposals.

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #2.

Also, please refer to the answers to questions #6, #7, #15, #42, #44, #51, #67 and/or #81 for more information

57. Question: Can USAID provide guidance on how we allow for the possibility of hiring and embedding staff within

Ministries in our budget (page 34)?

Answer: The labor portion of the budget should correspond to the staffing plan.

58. Question: How are the services to be provided under this project classified (severable or non‐severable)?

Answer: Severable.

59. Question: Due to the significant impacts these questions may have on our proposal, we are kindly requesting a two‐week extension of the Closing Date, from October 16, 2014 to October 30, 2014.

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #27.

60. Question: With regard to the separate submission of past performance information discussed in Section L.5.I.E

(pages 114 and 115), would USAID please confirm that the following items are to be included:

A list of up to 10 recent and relevant contracts A description of quality awards and certifications Narrative summary of the offeror’s use of small business concerns, with references

A list of recent contracts for which subcontract reports were submitted to the eSRS, along with a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to the eSRS

Answer: Yes. Please see the answer to question 53c.

61. Question: With regard to the “similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to the eSRS,” given that our subcontracting reports for the past several years total more than 800 pages and comprise more than 10 electronic files of at least 5 MB each, and that many of our subcontracting reports are available on the eSRS, we respectfully request the option of selecting 10 to 15 relevant SF 294 forms that have not been submitted to the eSRS for USAID’s review

Answer: E. Section III – Past Performance, d, 3, B, page 115, regarding eSRS, “recent” is being defined as the last year.

62. Question: For USAID’s convenience, may we include a list of acronyms used in our proposal that will not count against the page limit?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #17.

63. Question: RFP Sections C.3.1 (page 21) and C.3.3 (page 28, under Component 3) reference Tanzania’s new

National Health Care Financing Strategy. Would USAID please share a draft of the strategy with offerors?

Answer: A draft strategy is not yet available for circulation.

64. Question: Tanzania’s National HRH Strategic Plan expired in 2013. Would USAID please share a draft of the new strategy for 2014‐2019?

Answer: Please find the final HRH and SW Strategic Plan 2014‐2019 as Attachment # J‐10 to this solicitation.

65. Question: Outcome 3.1 (page 25) reads, “Provide members with objective health policy analysis specific to the needs of Parliamentarians, National and local GOT stakeholders, other policymakers and people of influence.”

Would USAID clarify whether “members” refers to Members of Parliament or stakeholders?

Answer: It refers to stakeholders.

66. Question: Section L.I (page 111) notes that a monitoring and evaluation plan is not included in the page limitation for the technical volume. Would USAID please confirm that the referenced monitoring and evaluation plan is the

Performance‐Based Management System discussed in Section M2 (page 128)?

Answer: Under Section M.2 Technical Evaluation, Section I – Technical Approach, page 127, delete Sub‐criterion 4, in its entirety and replace with: “4. Extent to which the Offeror’s approach demonstrates a strong rationale for the causal links between its system strengthening interventions and improved system performance, sustainability, as well as achievement of the USAID program objectives. In addition, the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear and concise strategy for monitoring the causal link and a clear, appropriate, and sound management system for monitoring progress of changes to public sector systems as a result of PS3 intervention.

Additionally, on page 113, No. 4, sixth line, please delete the sentence that begins with “This section … performance‐based monitoring system (PBMS)”. The revised sentence should read as follows: “This section will also embody a clear description of an appropriate, sound, effective and reliable management system for monitoring progress of changes to public sector systems as a result of PS3 intervention (see Component 5); as well as an overview of a monitoring and evaluation plan.”

67. Question: On page 113, the instructions for preparing Section II (Management Approach and Staffing) require offerors to “describe the proposed positions, including the key personnel positions, differing experience, qualifications, technical expertise, skills set (including language skills) and capabilities necessary to meet the requirements of the RFP.”

This suggests that USAID requires information on specific staff proposed. However, the RFP notes at the top of page 114 that “no CVs or names are required in this submission” and “key personnel and non‐key personnel should not be identified in the staffing pattern or elsewhere in the technical proposal.” Would USAID please clarify whether it wants information related only to the requirements of the proposed positions (for example, skills needed for the position, etc.)? Alternatively, does USAID want information related to specific candidate proposed?

Answer: Please refer to the answers to questions #2, #8 and #10.

Also, please refer to the answers to questions #6, #7, #15, #42, #44, #51, #56 and/or #81 for more information

68. Question: Section L.II.5.2 (page 117) requires offers to submit both a summary budget and a budget by component. Are subcontractors also required to present their budgets both by summary budget and by component?

Answer: Yes

69. Question: Section L.5.2.C (page 118) states, “Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for local organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part

31, these contracting mechanisms serve as tools to build the capacity of local organizations. Furthermore, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in higher financial and administrative burdens for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control because monthly costs vary significantly depending on the services provided by the subcontractor. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers

(under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

Therefore, we respectfully request that USAID allow offerors the flexibility of entering into CPFF‐ or T&M‐type subcontracts with local organizations when each of the following conditions is met:

A local organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or

T&M type subcontract

The local organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of its indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31

The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly

The local organization has established indirect cost rates, and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of its cost accounting standards

Answer: The Prime Contractor is not prohibited from entering into CPFF or T&M arrangements with their subcontractors. However, indirect costs under sub‐contracts, in the absence of a NICRA have proven to be challenging. USAID/Tanzania is not aware of any local organizations with an approved indirect cost rate. Should the Prime Contractor identify a local contractor with an approved indirect cost rate agreement and/or an approved accounting system, this should be brought to the Contracting Officer’s attention and approval sought on a case by case basis.

70. Question: Amendment 1 eliminates the requirement that the chief of party be a Tanzanian citizen. Would USAID consider also eliminating the requirement that the chief of party speak fluent Kiswahili?

Answer: Please refer to the answer to question #5.

71. Question: Please confirm whether the previously provided budget range of $65 ‐70 million under the pre‐ solicitation notice applies as a government‐estimated amount for this solicitation?

Answer: Please refer to the answers to questions #1, #24 and #33.

72. Question: Both sections B.5 and L.5.II.C include definitions of Major Subcontractors. In B.5, the Offerors are to include the indirect rate ceilings for each major subcontractor; while Section L.5.II provides options to propose

Time and Material subcontracts (based on a multiplier) and it clarifies that USAID’s preferred subcontract type is firm fixed price (FFP). Section L. also includes a NOTE (p.118) that all costs for local organizations must be budgeted and billed as direct costs and that indirect costs are not allowed. Based on the above these two sections may have contradictions between them and within them separately. Please clarify the following:

•Please confirm that the Offeror has the flexibility to Can Offerors choose an appropriate subcontract arrangement for its Major and other Subcontractors (either US or local firms) based on supporting documentation provided by the subcontractors (NICRA, audited financial statements, commercial rate card, previously approved USAID rates, etc.) Choice of subcontract type can be CPFF, T&M, or firm fixed price basis?

Answer: Yes •If subcontractors are provided on a firm fixed price basis, should Offerors correspondingly decrease the total number of LOE?

Answer: Subcontracting pricing arrangements are independent of the LOE.

73. Question: B.5 Indirect Costs pg. 13 and L.5.