Evaluate_for_Health_Amendment_No._02.pdf

USAID/Ghana – Evaluate for Health

SOL‐641‐13‐000010

Amendment No. 02

As a result of this Amendment, the specific changes are to the solicitation are as follows:

1. RFP Cover letter: Closing Date-, DELETE “August 19, 2013” and REPLACE with “August 30, 2013”.

2. Section B :

Section B.12 –LABOR CATEGORIES-UNBURDENED CEILING DAILY RATES, DELETE the paragraph under MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS (including Table on Page 15 of 118) in its entirety and REPLACE with the following in lieu thereof:

“MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

In order to perform the statement of work set forth in Section C, the Contractor must provide personnel that meet the minimum education and experience requirements set forth below. For all positions listed in Section B.12, the minimum qualifications for mid-level and senior personnel are as follows and correspond to the Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates

Level Academic

Degree* Plus Approximate Years of Relevant** Work Experience

Including Years of Experience in Int'l Development

Relevant Regional Experience

Relevant Language Fluency

Senior Ph.D./M.D.

MPH/MS/MBA

BS, BA

as specified in task order as specified in task order as specified in task order

Mid-level Ph.D./M.D.

MPH/MS/MBA

BS, BA

as specified in task order as specified in task order as specified in task order

Junior Ph.D./M.D.

MPH/MS/MBA

BS, BA

as specified in task order as specified in task order as specified in task order

*Highest degree obtained should be related to work being performed.

**Relevant Work Experience is required for the levels indicated.”

3. Section C:

Section C.3 (D)- MANAGEMENT OF TASK ORDER SUB-GRANTS , DELETE this section in its entirety and REPLACE with the following in lieu thereof: (revisions shown in yellow)

“(D) MANAGEMENT OF TASK ORDER SUB-GRANTS

Funds may be made available in individual task orders for the award and administration of grants. The contractor must solicit, negotiate, award and administer grants under task orders.

These grants will be secondary or minor to the overall work performed under the task order.

Grants management tasks may include: contractor(s) participation in or responsibility for the drafting and publication of Requests for Applications (RFAs). However, the program direction, focus, type of grantees and final grant approval will remain with the USAID/Ghana’s Mission TOCO. The Contractor will be responsible for working with local groups to develop grant proposals, evaluation of proposals, establishment of grant agreements, delivery of financial and in-kind assistance, monitoring implementation and grant close-out. The Contractor’s responsibilities may also include: screening of potential grantee partners, design of the grant, database entry, and/or monitoring and evaluating the grantee deliverables. The Contractor(s) must review all grant proposals before final approval to assure they are consistent with USAID policies and procedures, grant format and disposition of property. The TOCO must approve grants unless otherwise stated in the task order. The process for approving grants will be specified in the task orders.”

4. Section J:

(4a) Attachment J.1-CASE STUDY, “Background On Malaria in Ghana” (page 71 of 118), DELETE the 1st paragraph in its entirety and REPLACE with the following in lieu thereof:

(revisions shown in yellow)

“Background On Malaria in Ghana

Malaria is the leading cause of death and illness among children under five years of age, a major cause of illness and lost productivity among Ghanaians of all ages, a significant contributor to complications during pregnancy, and a significant cause of long-term disability.

Ghana’s entire population of 24.2 million is at risk of malaria, although transmission rates are lower in some urban areas. Transmission occurs year-round with seasonal variations. The Ministry of Health estimates that 3 to 3.5 million cases of suspected malaria are reported each year in public health facilities (National Malaria Control Strategic Plan), representing a fraction of the true burden of malaria. According to the GHS health facility data, malaria is the number one cause of morbidity, accounting for about 38 percent of all outpatient illnesses, 36 percent of all admissions, and 33 percent of all deaths in children under five years. The verbal autopsy component of the 2008 DHS household survey estimates that malaria accounted for 43 percent of all deaths in children ages 29 days to five years, and that roughly half of the deaths in children under five occurred at home. In addition to the impact of malaria on the health and well-being of Ghanaians, the burden of malaria contributes to significant family expense for malaria prevention and treatment, lost productivity among farmers and businesses, absenteeism from employment, and reduced national productivity.”

(4b) Attachment J.1, CASE STUDY, “Background On Community Mobilization Activities for

LLIN Distribution and Utilization in Ghana” (page 73 of 118), DELETE the 3rd paragraph in its entirety and REPLACE with the following in lieu thereof: (revisions shown in Yellow)

“Through ProMPT, USAID has supported the NMCP and GHS to distribute more than 12 million LLINs by the end of 2012.” The LLINs have been distributed through mass free door-to-door distribution campaigns with volunteers hanging the LLINs in households. With proper care, each LLIN should remain effective for about three years. The distribution has provided approximately one LLIN for every two people to achieve universal coverage. The 2011 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (M ICS) data estimates improved LLIN use in the three regions that benefitted from LLIN campaigns prior to the MICS data collection; 70.7 percent in Volta Region, 60.2 percent in Eastern Region, and 41.8 in Northern Region (national average is 39 percent). The Northern Region campaign targeted high risk groups rather than universal coverage, which partially explains the lower rate of use in Northern Region. The Upper East and Upper West Regions, which benefitted from UNICEF and WHO support over the past few years, also showed improved LLIN use.”

(4c) ADD the following attachments:

-ATTACHMENT J.5- ProMPT GHANA-Promoting Malaria Prevention and Treatment- Final Report-April 2009-March 2013;

-ATTACHMENT J.6 - USAID/Ghana 2013-2017 PMP: Planned Evaluation Summary Table.

-ATTACHMENT J.7- Local Compensation Plan (LCP)

5. Section L:

(5a) Section L.7 (2) – Case Study, (page 104 of 118), 1st paragraph is DELETED in its entirety and REPLACED with the following in lieu thereof: (revisions shown in Yellow)

“2. Case Study

The offeror must submit a Program Description describing the offeror’s approach to addressing the required tasks set forth in the Case Study (See Attachment J1) in an integrated manner. The Program Description must describe how the proposed approaches and methodologies are innovative, developmentally sound, and will successfully accomplish the case study elements stated, including the desired capacity building outcomes for USAID/Ghana and GOG staff. This must include the approach that the offeror will take to ensure sustainability and ownership by partner country institutions, including how key stakeholders will be involved in each deliverable.

The Program Description must include an M&E Plan, a Performance Framework, a brief description of sequencing with a clear timeline for measuring results, and expected targets and outputs. And the Program Description must include a dissemination plan for the study findings.

[Note: The Program Description is limited to 10 pages maximum. This is not included in the total page limit of 30 pages for the Technical Proposal].

This is a desktop exercise. Offerors shall not contact USAID/Ghana in connection with this

RFP.”

(5b) Section L.7 (3) (e)- Other Personnel, (page 107 of 118), 2nd paragraph is DELETED in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

- Offerors shall provide two (2) resumes that demonstrate access to Senior-Level technical expertise in the following labor category: Program development, implementation, Monitoring, Reporting Specialist including experimental and quasi-experimental designs, meta-evaluations, ex-post evaluations, case studies, and base-line studies.

- Offerors shall provide one (1) resume that demonstrates access to Senior-Level technical expertise in the following labor categories: Public Administration, Financial Analyst, Social Scientist and Information Management Specialist.

6. Questions received prior to the July 8th deadline and answers provided by USAID, can be found in the following pages (Page 6 to 17).

[Page Left Intentionally Blank]

SOL-641-13-000010

Evaluate for Health

Questions and Answers (Q&As)

Question 1: Approximately how many task orders per year does USAID anticipate issuing under the Evaluation for Health requirements contract?

Response 1: There is no guarantee on the number of task orders that the successful contractor will receive or the amount of the task orders beyond the minimum order guarantee set forth in the RFP. The basic contract includes an initial obligation of funds in the amount of $25,000 to cover the minimum order guarantee.

Question 2: Section C.1(2) Objective and General Description of the Contract – Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Assistance (RFP page 17 of 118), USAID/Ghana says that “……performance monitoring functions consist of reviewing project M&E plans for approval.” By M&E plans, does USAID mean Performance Monitoring Plans (PMP) or something else such as a Mission Evaluation Agenda?

Response 2: Yes, project M&E plans include Performance Monitoring Plans (PMP). The Contractor may be asked to review the methodology and design of smaller evaluations and assessments conducted by other projects within the health portfolio.

Question 3: Section C.3(B)(2) Description of Functional Activities and Tasks – Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Assistance (RFP page 23 of 118), second to last bullet, USAID states that contractors should “plan and facilitate a two day workshop to: review updates in USAID guidelines related to evaluation and performance management...” Would USAID clarify whether this is a one-time only or an annual event?

Response 3: This workshop is expected to be an annual event, but USAID may request that it be broken into shorter segments in subsequent years.

Question 4 : Section C.3(B)(2) Description of Functional Activities and Tasks – Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Assistance (RFP page 23 of 118), last bullet, USAID states “Provide support for Data Quality Assessments led by the USAID/Ghana Health team members.” Does USAID also envision the successful contractor actually conducting DQAs rather than supporting the USAID/Ghana Health team?

Response 5: Yes, the successful contractor may be required to conduct data quality assessments as agreed upon within the annual work plans.

Question 6: The RFP indicates that there are several organizations that can perform evaluations. Can USAID/Ghana provide an illustrative list of these public or private organizations other than the field research centers of the Health Research Unit of Ghana Health Service, or provide some guidance on a central repository of these organizations?

Response 6: There are too many public and private organizations in Ghana that can perform evaluations, and thus we cannot provide an exhaustive list. It is up to the potential Contractors to propose what they deem to be qualified organizations.

Question 7: The RFP indicates that the “Contractor is required throughout the performance period of this contract to provide services for implementing quantitative and qualitative baseline studies, evaluation case studies, performance evaluations, impact (experimental and quasi-experimental) evaluations, cross- sector and multi-country evaluations, survey research and statistical analysis and other evaluative studies.” (page 18)

Is it possible that the place of performance for this contract includes countries other than Ghana in selected cases?

Response 7: The place of performance will not include countries other than Ghana.

However, the Contractor may be asked to provide services for the Ghana portion of multi-country evaluations.

Question 8: In Attachment J.1 (Case Study), which documents and data sources (ProMPT or otherwise) will be made available for the Contractor to consult in writing the case study?

Response 8: All information regarding the Case Study is contained within the RFP. The ProMPT Final Report has been made available as an additional reference document. As deemed necessary, the Contractor should indicate any assumptions that they make in responding to the case study.

Question 9: In Attachment J.1 (Case Study), The Case Study Elements list question regarding the most effective method of community mobilization as evidenced by positive behaviors demonstrated at the community level. Will the Mission please clarify the “community level” indicators of primary interest in this element, if there are additional indicators to consider other than coverage, uptake, and utilization of nets (which are listed in the previous question).

Response 9: It is up to the Contractor to propose any appropriate indicators beyond coverage, uptake, and utilization of nets.

Question 10: Please see other questions related to clarifications on which regions are currently receiving ProMPT support. Will the Mission please also clarify the following:

Were components of the ProMPT project implemented across the entire regional level in these 7 regions, or were some components perhaps implemented strictly at lower administrative units (such as district level) within regions?

Please clarify whether all activities within implementation and TA support were initiated simultaneously, or phased in incrementally?

Response 10: Components of the ProMPT project were implemented at various levels in each region and district. Activities within implementation and TA support were phased in incrementally.

Question 11: Attachment J.1 specifies that the Contractor should provide a work plan and GANTT chart:

Is there a suggested period of performance for the Case Study, or is the Contractor free to propose a timeline?

Is there a suggested or illustrative Team Composition for the Case Study?

Response 11: The Contractor is free to propose a timeline and Team Composition for the

Case Study.

Question 12: There are a number of references within the Case Study to an M&E Plan with targets and outputs/benchmarks which is to be developed for the Case Study.

Usually M&E Plans are stand-alone documents with several sections (e.g.

indicator definitions and measurements, routine and non-routine data collection, data quality assurance, etc.).

Is the term "M&E Plan" being utilized in the Case Study to mean something akin to a Performance Framework?

Given that the two questions posed in the Case Study are post-facto evaluations, will the Mission please clarify the monitoring aspect of the Case Study.

Is the term “target” in reference to the “M&E Plan” being utilized to signify target date/percent completion of the evaluation process?

Response 12: Section L.7 (2) (Page 104 of RFP) has been clarified to read “The Program Description must include an M&E Plan, a Performance Framework, a brief description of sequencing with a clear timeline for measuring results, and expected targets and outputs.”

There is no routine monitoring aspect to the Case Study.

The term “target” signifies target date/percent completion of the evaluation process.

Question 13: Section H.28 of the RFP (Confidentiality and Ownership of Intellectual Property) states that “All findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be considered confidential and proprietary”. Will the Mission please clarify as to how this impacts the limits to which GoG and other in-country counterparts can be involved in the Case Study evaluations and have ownership of the process and products.

Response 13: The evaluation should be designed in a way that assures GoG and other in-country counterparts can be involved and have ownership of the process and products, while at the same time ensuring confidentiality and anonymity as appropriate. For purposes of the Case Study, assume that the Mission has provided approval for wide dissemination of the evaluation findings.

Question 14: Will the Mission please clarify how many and in which regions the ProMPT program is currently working. On page 74, seven regions are listed, on page 75 it states that ProMPT directly implemented in four regions and provided technical assistance in four more (total = 8), and on current information on ProMPT, per the URC website, shows the project working in nine regions.

Response 14: ProMPT activities focused on seven of Ghana’s ten regions: Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Eastern, Northern, Upper East, Upper West, and Volta. The project also provided technical support to some activities in all ten regions of Ghana. This information should be used for purposes of the Case Study.

Question 15: On page 71, it appears that a sentence has been truncated in the first paragraph under the section Background on Malaria in Ghana. The sentence begins “The Ministry of Health estimates that 3 to 3.5 million cases…”. Please provide the full sentence.

Response 15: The sentence has been amended to the following:

“The Ministry of Health estimates that 3 to 3.5 million cases of suspected malaria are reported each year in public health facilities (National Malaria Control Strategic Plan), representing a fraction of the true burden of malaria.”

Question 16: Given that currently it is 2013 and the ProMPT project ended in March 2013 after four years of implementation, the sentence (first sentence, third paragraph, Background on Community Mobilization Activities for LLIN Distribution and Utilization in Ghana) needs clarification. The sentence states “Over the past two years, USAID has supported the NMCP and GHS to distribute more than eight million LLINs to eight of Ghana’s ten regions, and expects to cover the remaining regions by the end of 2012.” Will the Mission please clarify whether this sentence is referencing a different activity or project?

Response 16: The sentence should be modified to say: “Through ProMPT, USAID has supported the NMCP and GHS to distribute more than 12 million LLINs by the end of 2012.”

Question 17: The RFP states, “In 2012 USAID worked with the NMCP and RHMTs to pilot the routine system in the Eastern Region and begin ANC and Child Welfare Clinic distribution in the Volta Region. A survey has been conducted in Eastern Regions to serve as a baseline to measure the impact of the enhanced routine distribution pilot.” Will the Mission please clarify as to whether the routine or enhanced routine system was piloted in the Eastern Region.

Response 17: The enhanced routine system was piloted in the Easter Negion.

Question 18: In describing ProMPT the RFP states, “The ProMPT project’s primary intervention was LLIN distribution through mass campaigns and routine continuous distribution systems.” and “Innovative approaches included distribution avenues not previously explored such as school-based distribution, targeting of disadvantaged communities for subsidies, and the utilization of new methods for determining the number of people to receive nets each year.” Are the activities as described in the second statement considered by USAID to be part of a routine distribution system or part of the enhanced routine distribution system/pilot?

Response 18: The activities were part of a pilot.

Question 19: Will the Mission please confirm the requirement for excellent editing skills is a minimum qualification for the Key personnel Senior Project Backstop position?

Response 19: Excellent editing skills is a minimum qualification for the Key personnel Senior Project Backstop position.

Question 20: Will the Mission please clarify whether Key personnel are required as full-time staff?

Response 20: All key personnel are required as full-time staff.

Question 21: In Section B.12 Labor Categories – Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates (RFP page 13 of 118), USAID/Ghana lists five (5) different labor categories. Later on, in Section C.3(B)(1) Description of Functional Activities and Tasks – Evaluation Studies and Assessments (RFP page 22 of 118) under the fifth bullet, USAID includes “Conduct environmental assessments of selected USAID/Ghana HPNO projects”. From the labor category list on page 13, it is not apparent that environmental specialists who are technically qualified to conduct USAID compliant environmental assessments are covered. Does USAID intend to add another labor category or provide an explanation that permits the inclusion of environmental scientists in the list of five categories?

Response 21: As per Section C.3 (B)(1), the illustrative activities listed under this Requirements contract are not substantially or predominately geared towards conducting environmental assessments. Specialized environmental assessment staff could be included in Labor category 1001- Program Development/Implementation/Monitoring/Reporting Specialist.

Question 22: Page 1 of RFP No. SOL-641-13-000010, Evaluate for Health references two deadlines for the submission of questions. Will you kindly clarify whether questions are due 28th June or 8th July?

Response 22: Amendment No. 1 has been posted on Fedbizopps on June 28, 2013 to correct the error. Deadline for submission of questions was July 8, 2013.

Question 23: Will the Mission please confirm an offeror’s Past Performance, Section D, outlined on pages 108 and 118 is to be composed of the five past performance references presented in the short form, Attachment J.3 or whether the short forms are to be an appendix?

Response 23: Prime and major subcontractor past performance information is to be included in appendix.

Question 24: Will the Mission please clarify whether the Gantt chart for the case study is to be included in the 10 page limitation or whether the chart should be an appendix?

Response 24: The Gantt chart is to be included in appendix.

Question 25: Will the Mission consider allowing offerors to submit bids electronically only, and forego the hard copy delivery option? Or alternatively, will the Mission accept proposal hard copies date-stamped and shipped the day of submission?

Response 25: Both electronic and hard copy proposals shall be submitted to the Mission by the closing date and time of the RFP.

Question 26: Will the Mission kindly provide the local compensation plan?

Response 26: Local Compensation Plan (LCP) is attached.

Question 27: Will the Mission please confirm the labor categories for financial analyst and information management specialist as outlined on pages 14 and 15 of the RFP functionally correspond with the statement of work?

Response 27: Confirmed

Question 28: B.12 Labor Categories on page 13 of the RFP states that “Two unburdened ceiling daily rates for each labor category are included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders. If junior-level personnel are required under task orders, they must be proposed at rates below the mid-level unburdened ceiling daily rate.” However, the subsequent chart requests rates for junior, mid and senior levels. Will the Mission please clarify whether or not offerors are to propose ceiling daily rates for junior-level personnel?

Response 28: Offerors are requested to propose Ceiling Daily Rates (CDR) for Junior-level personnel.

Question 29: Section G.5(a) – Technical Directions/Relationship with USAID (RFP page 38 of 118), Technical Directions is defined with a reference to “drawings” in items (2) and (3). Would USAID please clarify the context which “drawings” would be relevant in technical directions to contractors?

Response 29: Section G.5 is a standard/customary language found in most USAID issued RFPs.

Question 30: Section L.2(f) 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004) – Contract Award (RFP page 98of 118), sub-paragraph (1), USAID says it intend to “award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation...” whereas on the cover letter transmitting the RFP, USAID says in the first paragraph that USAID/Ghana “…anticipates awarding approximately one (1) requirements contract resulting from this solicitation.” Would USAID clarify how many contracts it intends to award from this solicitation?

Response 30: USAID confirms that it anticipates awarding one (1) requirements contract as a result of this solicitation.

Question 31: Section B.12(b) Labor Categories (RFP page 13 of 118) states: “The single unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category in the table below represents the mid-level and senior-level rate for each category. Two unburdened ceiling daily rates for each labor category is included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders. If junior-level personnel are required under task orders, they must be proposed at rates below the mid-level unburdened ceiling daily rate”.

The statement above makes it appear that USAID does not require Offerors to submit a ceiling rate for junior staff as long as they are proposed in Task Orders below the mid-level rate; however, the chart contained in Section B.12 contains a column for Junior Unburdened rates. Should Offerors leave the Junior Unburdened column blank and only propose rates for the Mid-Level and Senior-level?

Response 31: See response to Question 28

In reference to the labor chart found in Section B.12, should Offerors assume the ceiling rates proposed cover all staff/consultants and will cover all personnel despite their employment status: Expatriate, CCN and TCN? For example, under CLIN 1001 (senior) the unburdened rate proposed would cover an Expatriate, TCN and/or CCN? Similarly, this rate would make no differentiation if the person is located in the home office or in the field?

Response 31: The ceiling daily rate (CDR), which represents the maximum rate, applies to all categories of personnel identified in this RFP, regardless of nationality and/or location of the proposed staff/consultant. Approvals for rates are required in accordance with AIDAR 752.7007 (page 42 of the RFP) and with AIDAR 722.170(a) (page 16 of the RFP).

Question 32: The Price Evaluation Matrix provided in Attachment J.2 (page 77 of 118) provides an illustrative labor schedule. Are we correct in assuming that the daily rates are to be proposed at the ceiling level and not discounted as if this were an actual task order? Similarly, are we correct in assuming that the fee is to be proposed at the ceiling level and not discounted as if this were an actual task order?

Response 32: Yes. Both daily rates and Fixed Fee are to be proposed at the ceiling level.

Question 33: Are Offerors required to follow the US, TCN, CCN, US-based and Field-based designations outlined in the Price Evaluation Matrix? E.g. the first line item under A. Salaries and Wages on RFP page 78 of 118 is for “Category 1001 (senior);

260 person-days [Long-Term US (Home Office)]”. Can USAID confirm that Offerors may not replace that with, for example, Category 1001 (senior) 260 person-days [Long Term CCN (Field Office)]?

Response 33: This is left at the discretion of the offeror as this is dependent of each offeror’s technical approach. Either option is acceptable. The proposed rates and location of the staff/consultant will be included in the resulting and negotiated contract.

Question 34: Section L.6 Delivery Instructions states that both electronic and hard copy proposals must be submitted. Would USAID consider allowing the electronic submission to serve as the formal submission and allow hard copies to be delivered via local Postal Service or courier service after the due date as long as the hard copies were mailed/expressed by the official due date and time?

Response 34: Please see USAID response to Question No. 25.

Question 35: Section L.6 Delivery Instructions states that hard copies should be delivered via local Postal Service or courier service. Does this mean that USAID does not want the Offeror to hand-deliver the proposals themselves to the Mission but prefers a third-party delivery?

Response 35: Hand delivery is also acceptable.

Question 36: Page 71 of the RFP states that “the offeror must provide a GANTT chart showing key activities related to the case study.” Is the GANTT chart included in the 10 page limit for the Case Study response or can it be submitted as an annex to the Technical Proposal?

Response 36: Please see USAID Response to Question No. 24.

Question 37: Page 108 of the RFP states that: “Offerors must include a list of five (5) U.S.

Government, other donor, and/or privately funded contracts received by your organization, and for each ‘major subcontractor’ for work of similar size and scope to that required of this solicitation performed within the last five years.”

Please confirm whether the total is 5 for the entire team (prime including subcontractors), or 5 each for the prime offeror and each subcontractor.

Response 37: Offerors are required to submit the same information on past performance for the prime and its proposed major subcontractors, i.e. 5 each for the prime and 5 each for each proposed subcontractor.

Question 38 : The RFP states that “An Original and four copies (04) of technical proposal and original and two (02) copies of cost proposal must be sent via the local Postal Service or via courier service and must be received by the due date and time specified.” Could USAID please confirm whether an international mailing service, such as FedEx or DHS, is an acceptable delivery method?

Response 38: Use of international mailing services such as the ones cited in this question, is acceptable.

Question 39: On page 102-103 of the RFP, a 30 page limit is placed on the technical proposal, which excludes the Case Study Response (10 pages maximum).

Please confirm that the 30 page limitation for the technical proposal will only apply to the following three sections (1) Institutional Support; (3) Personnel and Management Plan; and (4) Past Performance.

Response 39: Correct. The 30 page limitation only includes Institutional Support, Personnel and Management Plan and Past Performance.

Question 40: On page 15, Section B. 12, in the Minimum Qualifications for the labor categories, it states that the “junior” category requires a BS/BA degree and 8 years of experience. We are concerned that this requirement may provide USAID with unnecessarily costly assistance, particularly at the junior level.

Junior level assistance often takes the form of administrative support, research assistance and other types of assistance that can be effectively provided by individuals with a BA/BS and a minimum of 2 years’ experience. We are concerned that USAID may want to consider reducing this requirement in order to ensure access to lower cost individuals to perform junior-level tasks.

Response 40: Thanks for catching this. Minimum qualification for Junior level category has been revised to “BS/BA and a 5 years of experience” (See Amendment)

Question 41: On page 107, Section L.7.3.(e) Other Personnel, states:

Offerors shall provide two (2) resumes that demonstrate access to Senior- Level technical expertise in the following labor category: Program Evaluation…

Offerors shall provide one (1) resume that demonstrates access to Senior- Level technical expertise in the following labor category: Partner Country Institution Capacity Building…

However, there is no “Program Evaluation” or “Partner Country Institution Capacity Building” labor categories listed in the labor categories on pages 13-15 in Section B:

1001 Program Development/Implementation /Monitoring/Reporting Specialist 1002. Public Administration/Financial Analyst 1003. Social Scientist 1004. Information Management Specialist 1005. Administrative Support We have the following related questions:

a) Can USAID please confirm that you only want a total of 3 resumes in support of all 5 labor categories listed in Section B?;

b) Can you please clarify for which labor categories you want the resumes provid

c) Can you please clarify how many of the 3 resumes should be expatriate or local personnel?

Response 41: (a) Offerors are requested to submit five (5) resumes total: Two (2) for

Category 1001; and one (1) each for category 1002, 1003 and 1004.

(b) See Response of question 40(a)

(c) This is dependent of the offeror’s technical approach.

Question 42: Will the Mission please clarify how full-time key personnel will be funded, given that some of their time may not be directly attributable to individual Task Orders?

Response 42: Offerors are requested to budget salaries and related costs of key personnel.

Question 43: Section C.3(D) Description of Functional Activities and Tasks – Management of Task Order Sub-Grants (RFP page 24 of 118) states that “...final grant approval will remain with the tasking Bureau TOCO or Mission TOCO.” Would USAID/Ghana please clarify the lines of accountability between the TOCO for the Bureau (presumably the Africa Bureau) and the USAID/Ghana Mission?

Response: The USAID/Ghana Mission TOCO will provide final grant approval for the task order requests. (Please see amendment revising this Section).

Question 44: Page 17 of the RFP states, “USAID is actively seeking to increase the numbers of new contractors that are able to implement high quality task orders. For the purposes of this RFP, a new partner is defined as a potential contractor that has never received funding from USAID/Ghana.” However, the Institutional Capability criteria listed on pages 115 and 116 of the RFP do not repeat this language, and actually emphasize the importance of prior experience in Ghana. Please confirm our understanding that this language does not preclude contractors having provided support activities for the Mission from bidding on the RFP?

Response 44: USAID reiterates its continuous attempt to foster partnership with new contractors to implement high quality USAID funded programs. However, this language does not preclude former or current contractors from submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

Question 45: Are the prime and/or subcontractors currently implementing USAID health programs in Ghana eligible to submit proposals for the Evaluate for Health program?

Response 45: Current implementing partners (prime and/or subcontractors) are eligible to submit proposals for the Evaluate for Health program.

Question 46: Will the prime and/or subcontractors awarded the Evaluate for Health contract be restricted from participating as a prime or subcontractor on future USAID/Ghana procurements during the life of the Evaluate for Health Project?

Response 46: No, the prime and/or subcontractor awarded implementation of the Evaluate for Health program will not be precluded from bidding on future USAID/Ghana’s solicitations in general; however, a preclusion will apply to future procurements of USAID/Ghana’s Health Office.

Question 47: Would the awardee of this procurement be excluded from bidding on health projects that the USAID Mission issues? Or if an applicant is currently an implementer for a health project in Ghana, are we excluded from bidding on this new RFP?

Response 47: Yes, the selected awardee for Evaluate for Health will be excluded from bidding on future USAID/Ghana’s health procurements but current implementing partners are not excluded.

Question 48: Page 17 of the RFP notes: “USAID is actively seeking to increase the numbers of new contractors that are able to implement high quality task orders. For the purposes of this RFP, a new partner is defined as a potential contractor that has never received funding from USAID/Ghana.”

Yet the Institutional Capability criteria listed on pp 115 and 116 of the RFP do not repeat this language, interestingly, and actually emphasize the importance of prior experience in Ghana.

We are firm XYZ and have received funding from USAID/Ghana for short-term assignments to perform support activities for the Mission such as assisting with preparation of the Mission’s PMP and CDCS. Can you please confirm our understanding that this language does not preclude our bidding on the Evaluate For Health RFP?

Response 48: Firm XYZ is not precluded from bidding on this solicitation.

[END OF AMENDMENT No. 02]