DRC-IHP_USAID_Response_to_Potential_Offerors_Questions_FINAL.pdf

USAID/DRC Responses to Questions Received for

SOL-660-16-000009 The Integrated Health Program for the DRC

1. Section L.6.2 on page 123 states the Program Management section must include a Draft Award Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) which is not included in page limit. Page 127 has another outline of this section that includes both an “Award Monitoring and Evaluation Summary Narrative” and “Draft AMEP”. Can USAID please clarify the difference between the Award Monitoring and Evaluation Summary Narrative” and “Draft

AMEP”?

Please also confirm that since page 123 states that the AMEP does not count against the page limit, both the “Award Monitoring and Evaluation Summary Narrative” and “Draft AMEP” should be added to the list of allowable annexes on Page 124?

Answer: Subsection D of Section L.6.4.3 Program Management on Page 127 “Draft AMEP,” was included in error. Section L.6.4.3 is hereby replaced by the following language:

L.6.4.3 Program Management

The Program Management section consists of:

A. Program Management Plan B. Draft Year 1 Work Plan C. Award Monitoring and Evaluation (AMEP) Summary Narrative

2. Page 124 includes Resumes for Key Personnel as a required annex and therefore not included in the technical proposal page limit. However, page 130 states that resumes are “(included in 30 page narrative limit).” Please confirm that the Key Personnel Resumes included in the annex do not count against the overall technical narrative page limit.

Answer: Resumes for Key Personnel are not included in the overall technical narrative page limit. Section L.6.4.4.B. Resumes (Section M.4, Criteria 3) is hereby replaced by the following language:

L.6.4.4.B. Resumes (Section M.4, Criteria 3) References that summarize qualifications for proposed key personnel (not included in 30 page narrative limit) (not to exceed three pages each);

Resumes for key personnel must be included as attachments in an Annex. Resumes for non-key Personnel shall not be submitted in the Proposal.

Key Personnel Resumes: The Offeror shall submit a complete and current resume, no more than three (3) pages in length, for each of the Key Personnel listed in Section F.12 and any other proposed Key Personnel. The Offeror shall also submit three (3) references, with complete contact information, for the proposed candidates, including their most recent supervisor. USAID reserves the right to contact other references not provided by the Offeror.

The list of references is not included in the three-page resume limit.

3. Would USAID allow an additional annex that contains a project organogram to more clearly show the organization and relationships of project offices and staff?

Answer: Yes, this document may be included in an Annex to the RFP and has a 1 page limit.

4. On page 126, HIV is listed as sub-sector that the contractor must address, however, it does not seem to be listed anywhere else as a subsector we must address except in the context of collaborating with the ProVic project. Can you please clarify if the Offeror is expected to explicitly plan to do standalone HIV related activities?

Answer: The Offeror is not expected to plan standalone HIV activities. The Offeror is expected to coordinate with other USG partners who implement HIV activities.

5. In the SOO, Objective 1 on page 160 states that “Targeted institutions/actors include: DPS personnel, health zone management teams, regional commodities managers, and health facility managers and personnel, among others.” and on page 161, IR 1.7 is “Increased availability of essential commodities at provincial, health zone, facility, and community levels,” however, on page 165 the RFP clearly states that Technical assistance to CDRs will not be part of IHP-DRC. Can you please confirm this?

Answer: As stated in Section J.1.6 OPERATING CONSTRAINTS, located on RFP Page 165, in illustrative support to the Provincial level: Supply chain management strengthening with a focus on the linkage between the Regional Commodities Distribution Centers (Centres Regionales de Distribution/CDR) to health zones and service delivery points. Support will focus on strengthening the ability of health facility personnel to manage stock at the facility level. Technical assistance to CDRs will not be part of IHP-DRC. The USAID/Global Health Supply Chain- Technical Assistance program will provide this support.

6. Please clarify if USAID requires a total of three past performance questionnaires for an entire team (prime and major subcontractors) or three questionnaires each for prime and major subcontractors.

Answer: Please provide three past performance questionnaires for each prime and each major subcontractor.

7. In developing the Program Work Statement (PWS), would USAID like us to repeat the basic information in the SOO, e.g., purpose of project, health indicators, target regions, desired results, etc.? Or should we include only the results tied to the intermediate results (IRs)?

Answer: The Performance Work Statement (PWS) will be entered as Section C of the final contract, thus should contain all relevant and necessary information for contract performance.

8. Should we include the reporting deliverables in the PWS, e.g., quarterly report, etc?

Answer: No, the reporting deliverables are included in Section F of the final contract.

9. Should we include other deliverables that are specified in the RFP, such as the ones tied to the fee schedule? Or will USAID add these deliverables to the contract and it is not necessary for the offeror to repeat them in the PWS?

Answer: Attachment J.10 states the offeror must propose "annually increasing targets," thus the proposed targets need to be in the PWS and linked to the fee schedule.

10. On P. 29 of the RFP under “Gender Analysis and Gender Implementation Strategy, the RFP states that “The Gender Implementation Strategy will also carefully monitor activity implementation to ensure that females and males benefit equally from contract activities.” Bearing in mind USAID’s welcome requirement that “IHP-DRC will involve men in addressing gender norms and barriers to service access and combat the assumption that women’s empowerment implies men’s disempowerment” (P. 166), we nevertheless expect that, in order to achieve the goals of IHP-DRC, some contract activities should be designed to benefit females more than males to address the higher barriers to access that face women and girls. Would USAID therefore consider revising the language on P. 29 to say, “The Gender Implementation Strategy will also carefully monitor activity implementation to ensure that females and males benefit appropriately from contract activities”?

Answer: USAID concurs with the suggested amended language. F.6 REPORTS, PLANS AND OTHER DELIVERABLES (B)(2) Gender Analysis and Gender Implementation Strategy is hereby replaced by the following language:

● Gender Analysis and Gender Implementation Strategy The Contractor will submit a Gender Analysis and Gender Implementation Strategy ninety

(90) days after contract award date, with annual updates included in the annual Work Plan submission. The Contractor must conduct a Gender Analysis and develop a strategy to identify gender-based biases that impact quality and access to health care services, products, and that hinder healthy behavior. The Contractor will implement this strategy to address these biases, documenting best practices. The Gender Implementation Strategy will also carefully monitor activity implementation to ensure that females and males benefit appropriately from contract activities.

11. Given the overlap of targeted zones in the annex J.13 "Illustrative list of Supported Health Zones" with other donor projects, notably DfID's ASSP, does USAID anticipate that DfID will no longer continue to support these zones after the end of ASSP?

Answer: USAID is unable to anticipate any changes in this program.

12. L.10.4 Part 4 - Policies and Procedures. If the Offeror does not have prior USAID contracting experience, it shall submit a copy of its personnel and travel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations, etc. The instructions say that subcontracts must adhere to Sections 2,3,4 and 7. Section 4 is above – does this apply only to major subs, or to ALL subs?

Answer: This requirement applies to major subcontractors only.

13. Does USAID have any suggested budget ranges for the base vs option periods?

Answer: No, USAID does not have any suggested budget ranges.

14. Attachment J.8 Budget Template - Under what line item should Grants under Contracts (GUCs) be in the summary budgets?

Answer: Please see attached Attachment J.8 Detailed Budget Template for the modification to include Grants under Contracts in the template.

15. Does USAID have a suggested amount for the Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) component?

Answer: USAID estimates between $8 and $11 million for GUCs over the total seven year period of performance.

16. Attachment J.8 Budget Template – Under what line item should the infrastructure improvements be included (page 171 of the RFP)?

Answer: Please see attached Attachment J.8 Detailed Budget Template for the modification to include Infrastructure Improvements under Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

17. Page 163 of the RFP requires a project office in Kinshasa. However, Attachment J.8 Budget

Template does not include a geographic region for Kinshasa. Therefore, where in the required budget template should the Kinshasa project office costs be shown? Should

Kinshasa be split 9 ways (3 regions and 3 objectives)?

Answer: Please see the attached Attachment J.8 Amended Detailed Budget Template to include a tab for Kinshasa costs behind the summary sheet.

18. Attachment J.3 includes the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; however it is not required in the proposal. Is this Disclosure required in the business proposal?

Answer: The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities is a required submission that accompanies the business proposal.

19. Could USAID kindly provide the latest Local Compensation Plan/Foreign Service National scale for the DRC?

Answer: USAID/DRC cannot furnish the Local Compensation Plan (LCP), but please find below a table including the local salary and allowances ranges for 12 professional levels. For a proposed salary to be considered reasonable, its level of responsibility must be comparable to the below listed professional levels. The table is based on an 80 hours/2 week pay period and salaries are provided in US Dollars.:

Category Professional Level

Basic Salary Allowances

Min Max Min Max

Senior Professional

12 $56,712 $87,907 $24,643 $35,452

Mid-Level Professional

11 $40,983 $63,525 $19,570 $27,639

Senior Office Manager

10 $32,430 $50,280 $16,876 $23,395

Mid-Level Office

Manager

9 $25,144 $38,965 $10,563 $15,400

Senior Assistant

8-7 $16,810 $28,555 $8,117 $11,930

Junior Assistant

5-6 $13,034 $22,062 $7,110 $9,883

Re-production Clerk/Junior Clerk/Driver

4-3 $10,771 $18,209 $6,308 $8,667

Attendant/Run ner/Gardener/J anitor

1-2 $9,077 $15,322 $5,857 $7,756

20. Does an enhanced partnership agreement exist between USAID and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If so, can USAID kindly provide a copy?

Answer: USAID does not have an enhanced partnership agreement with the Democratic Republic of Congo.

21. Will any property, such as furniture, equipment or vehicles be made available from the current project?

Answer: Property and equipment from the current USAID/DRC program will be made available to IHP-DRC. Please see below for a list of items that are anticipated to be made available for IHP-DRC. Please be advised that this list is an estimate and may change by the time of contract award.

Item # Description of Equipment Date of Purchase

Total Cost

Location Condition of equipment

1 TOYOTA FORTUNER, 013 IT 257 9-Jan-09 $40,000.00 KINSHASA Good

2 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013 IT 751 9-Jan-09 $42,700.00 KINSHASA Good

3 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013 IT 197 1-Apr-13 $50,000.00 Kolwezi Good

4 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013 IT 558 1-Feb-11 $46,453.00 Kolwezi Good

5 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013IT800 17-Oct-11 $40,750.00 Lodja Good

6 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013IT545 17-Oct-11 $40,750.00 Lodja Good

7 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 544 1-Jan-09 $42,717.00 Kananga Good

8 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, Plaque 013 IT 543 1-Feb-13 $40,750.00 Mweneditu Good

9 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, Plaque 013 IT 799 1-Feb-11 $40,750.00 Mweneditu Good

10 GENERATOR Diesel KUBOTA mark, 15 KVA, model, 315-570

1-Jan-10 $6,500.00 Lodja Good

11 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013IT715 1-Jun-11 $40,000.00 Lodja Good

12 PRINTER RISOGRAPHE CZ 100 1-Feb-11 $10,000.00 Kamina Good

13 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 321 3-Jul-12 $51,300.00 Kamina Good

14 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 049 3-Jul-05 $46,453.00 Kamina Good

15 GENERATOR LISTER PETTER 1-Feb-11 $14,500.00 Bukavu Good

16 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 314 27-Mar-13 $50,000.00 Bukavu Good

17 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 106 27-Mar-11 $50,000.00 Bukavu Good

18 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 323 1-Feb-11 $50,000.00 Bukavu Good

19 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 256 17-Oct-13 $51,661.28 Bukavu Good

20 PRINTER RISOGRAPH CZ 100 1-Feb-11 $12,000.00 Bukavu Good

21 PRINTER RISOGRAPH 23-Mar-12 $12,000.00 Kolwezi Good

22 GENERATOR 1-Aug-11 $15,000.00 Kolwezi Good

23 PRINTER KYOCERA M1035 1-Feb-11 $10,000.00 Kananga Good

24 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 085 1-Mar-13 $46,453.00 Kananga Good

25 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 013 IT 714 1-Feb-13 $40,750.00 Kananga Good

26 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, Plaque 013 IT 160 1-Feb-13 $40,750.00 Mbuji Mayi Good

27 GENERATOR STAUNCH SLG184E 1-Feb-11 $20,000.00 Kinshasa Good

28 TOYOTA FORTUNER 30-Nov-

$29,155.45 Kinshasa Good

29 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013 IT 761 1-Feb-13 $43,900.00 Kinshasa Good

30 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013 IT 578 13-Apr-10 $43,900.00 Kinshasa Good

31 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER, 013 IT 577 13-Apr-10 $43,900.00 Kinshasa Good

22. Does USAID have guidance with regards to the recommended flights for travel within DRC?

Answer: No.

23. Are there any additional insurance requirements for Eastern Congo given the current security situation?

Answer: The Offeror should take all necessary steps to effectively work in the Eastern Congo context. Offerors should be aware the waiver of the DBA Insurance requirement has expired in more than 100 countries including the DRC, and while local labor law requires similar coverage at the local level, it has not been determined if the local requirement is equivalent and therefore acceptable.

24. On P. 37 of the RFP, the “F.7 Reporting and Deliverable Matrix” table includes “Finance and Work Days Reporting” but there is no reference to work days reporting. It seems this may be applicable to a Time & Materials contract and not applicable to this RFP. Could USAID clarify?

Answer: The reference in F.7 Reporting and Deliverable Matrix to “Finance and Work Days Reporting” is hereby deleted from the RFP.

25. Would USAID consider changing the authorized geographic code to 935?

Answer: The IHP-DRC authorized geographic code is hereby changed to 935, except for procurement for WASH activities, which will remain 937. The successful offeror will be expected to track spending on WASH funded activities in their accounting systems. Section H.11 is hereby deleted and replaced by the following language:

H.11 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is 935 (any area or country including the recipient country, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source), except for any procurement for WASH activities, which will remain 937 (the United States, the Cooperating Country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source). For accurate identification of developing countries, advanced developing countries, and prohibited sources, please refer to AIDAR 752.225-70, “Source and Nationality Requirements,” (FEB 2012) and the Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 310 entitled "Source and Nationality Requirements for Procurement of Commodities and Services Financed by

USAID.

26. On P. 70 of the RFP under “H.35 CONTRACTOR’S USE OF PROJECT VEHICLES AND

LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES”

the RFP states that “Home to office to home use of project vehicles is not considered official business and is not allowed under the terms of this contract.” Given the security conditions in DRC, we ask that USAID reconsider this restriction in consideration of the importance of ensuring staff security and safety at all times.

Answer: Section H.35 CONTRACTOR’S USE OF PROJECT VEHICLES AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES is hereby deleted from the RFP.

27. Page 144 of the RFP states that USAID’s preferred subcontract type remains the firm fixed price type. Could USAID provide clarification if this applies to international subcontractors or local subcontractors, or both?

Answer: This USAID preference applies to both international subcontractors and local subcontractors. All other proposed subcontracts will require USAID CO approval as per FAR Part 44.

28. Can USAID confirm that for budget purposes and activity planning that the illustrative list of

HZs should be used, and a final list of intervention zones will be finalized upon contract?

Furthermore, does USAID require that the contractor have activities in all of the health zones included in the illustrative list?

Answer: The Offeror should use the illustrative categorized list provided as a basis for the development of their proposal. The list is illustrative and the Offeror has the freedom in their proposal to make a case for inclusion or exclusion of zones from the list. The final list of intervention zones will be determined with USAID after award.

29. In Section F.3 – Place of Performance, Kinshasa is not listed as a place of performance.

Based on the location of both USAID/DRC and the Ministry of Health headquarters, among other national coordinating bodies, we request Kinshasa be added to the places of performance. Technical activities will primarily take place outside of Kinshasa.

Answer: Section F.3 – Place of Performance is hereby replaced by the following language:

F.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The place of performance under this Contract will be the provinces of Kinshasa, Haut Lomami, Lualaba, Haut Katanga, Tanganyika, South Kivu, Kasai Oriental, Lomami, Sankuru, Kasai Central, and Kasai in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

30. Given that gender analyses and conflict-sensitivity analyses (Section F.6) may have been carried out in implementation zones by recently started-up USAID development activities (e.g., Food for Peace DFAPs in each region, Integrated Governance Activity, ACCELERE), can IHP-DRC look to build upon the findings of these studies, or will offerors be expected to conduct a new gender analysis and conflict-sensitivity analysis?

Answer: Offerors will need to conduct a gender and conflict sensitivity analysis for IHP-

DRC.

31. Section L.6.4.2.c notes that the “draft AMEP must clearly identify key output and outcome indicators, including targets, disaggregated by region, to measure success in achieving the objectives as described in the SOO.” Does USAID intend for this list of key indicators to include the key indicators in Attachment J.1.4 (Table 1), Overview of Health Statistics by Province, or the key indicators in Attachment J.1.5, Performance Goal, Objectives, and Targets?

Answer: USAID intends that the list of key indicators will include both the key indicators in Attachment J.1.4 (Table 1), Overview of Health Statistics by Province, and the key indicators in Attachment J.1.5, Performance Goal, Objectives, and Targets.

32. Attachment J.1.6 states the program can use available data as baseline or conduct a baseline assessment “if necessary.” Given the wide variation in data reliability in DRC, could USAID suggest data sets that the Agency considers acceptable to use as baseline across geographies?

Additionally, please confirm USAID’s preference for existing data or conducting a program-specific baseline. Should USAID want offerors to plan for a program-wide baseline, will offerors need to budget for the baseline or will it be conducted and funded by a third-party implementer?

Answer: The Offeror should plan for and budget to conduct a program baseline.

33. Section L.6.4.2.A lists HIV as a sub-sector that the offeror must specifically address in the Technical Approach Narrative; however, HIV is not included in the Statement of Objectives and is addressed through other USAID activities. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should exclude HIV from the health sub-sectors to be addressed in the Technical Approach Narrative?

Answer: The Offeror is not expected to plan standalone HIV activities. The Offeror is expected to coordinate with other USAID partners who implement the two USAID/ Integrated HIV Programs (IHAP) in Kinshasa and Lubumbashi; USAID/ELIKIA, which implements activities for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) in Haut Katanga and Lualaba Provinces; a number of field support mechanisms, including 4Children, which implements OVC activities in the Kinshasa area, and LINKAGES, which does HIV activities for key populations in Haut Katanga and Lualaba.

34. Attachment J.13 does not include illustrative full and minimum supported health zones for the Kasai Province. We respectfully request the health zones for Kasai be added to the document. Further, could USAID please clarify whether the illustrative categorized list of target health zones and their differentiation into “Full Support” versus “Minimum Support” is considered final and therefore to be adopted by offerors as the final list of IHP target health zones? Or does USAID anticipate offerors proposing the list of health zones and level of support anticipated for each health zone as part of their technical proposal?

Answer: As noted on RFP Page 164: Attachment J.13 contains an illustrative categorized list of target health zones. USAID expects Offerors to propose the list of health zones and level of support anticipated for each health zone as part of their technical proposal. The final list of health zones and level of support will be agreed to with USAID after award.

35. Section H.11, Authorized Geographic Code, identifies 937 as the Authorized Geographic Code for the IHP-DRC program. The use of this code may restrict the inclusion of regional or international partners needed in support of implementation of IHP-DRC activities, who are not defined as “developing countries” in ADS Chapter 310, and for which it is not possible for the needs to be fulfilled through DRC partners. To provide maximum flexibility during implementation, would USAID consider the use of Geographic Code 935 for IHP-DRC?

Answer: See answer to Question 25 above.

36. Section H.14, Environmental Compliance, requires a written approach and budget for developing/implementing the Environmental Management & Mitigation Plan (EMMP) in the cost volume and a description about providing environmental management expertise in the technical volume. Can USAID please confirm that the discussion portion may be included in the EMMP annex to the technical volume and not included within page limits, since Section L.6.2, Organization of Technical Proposal, does not include this discussion piece in the technical requirements?

Answer: USAID hereby confirms that Environmental Compliance discussion portion may be included in the EMMP Annex to the technical proposal and will not be included within the page limitations.

37. We have recently been informed that effective September 30, 2016, ADS Chapter 548 is being archived and will no longer apply; therefore, we respectfully request that Section H.20, Non-Expendable Property Purchases and Information Technology Resources, be removed in its entirety from the RFP.

Answer: Section H.20, Non-Expendable Property Purchases and Information Technology Resources: The introductory paragraph of Section H.20 is replaced with the following language (subsections 1 -3 of Section H.20 remain unchanged):

H.20 ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION (IT) RESOURCES

The Contractor shall submit all information necessary to COR in order to comply with the requirements contained in ADS 546.3.4.3 IT Procurements Over $100,000 and ADS

548.3.3.1 What M/CIO/Reviews, which require review and approval by the Bureau for Management, Business Consulting and Client Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer (M/CIO/BCCS) in USAID/W of information technology components in which the life-cycle cost of commodities or services (e.g., installation, maintenance, and technical assistance) exceeds $100,000.

38. Please confirm that, under Section H.40, Grants under Contract, contractors will be authorized to award grants to governmental organizations in line with ADS 302.3.4.13.b and that solely in-kind grants are authorized.

Answer: Under Section H.40 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT, Contractors are not authorized to award grants to governmental organizations.

39. Section F.6, Reports, Plans, and Other Deliverables, states that the “Contractor will prepare and submit a Procurement Plan to the COR and the CO by no later than forty-five (45) days” following contract award; however, in Section L.6.2, Organization of Technical Proposal, a procurement plan is listed as a proposal annex. Kindly confirm that a procurement plan should be prepared and submitted post-award per Section F.6.

Answer: A procurement plan should be prepared and submitted post-award per Section F.6.

The final paragraph of Section L.6.2, Organization of Technical Proposal is hereby replaced with the following language:

“The following must be presented as Annexes and are not included in the technical proposal page limit:

● Draft Year 1 Work Plan

● Resumes for Key Personnel

● Statement of Intention and Availability for Key Personnel

● Contractor Performance Information

● Preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP)

● Subcontracting Plan with U.S. small businesses, if required

● Preliminary Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP)”

40. Section L.6.1.5 stipulates that only 8.5 x 11 inch paper may be used for both submissions.

However, it is expected that the detailed budget spreadsheets in the cost proposal may be large and would not present well on 8.5 x 11 inch paper. For ease of reading, would it be acceptable to use 11 x 17 inch paper for the detailed budget spreadsheets in the cost proposal?

Answer: Yes, an 11 x 17 inch paper for the detailed spreadsheets of the cost proposal is acceptable.

41. Section L.6.2, Organization of the Technical Proposal, references the fact that a Climate

Risk Mitigation Plan (CRMP) is an annex to be submitted by offerors in their technical proposals. It is our understanding based on ADS 201, Climate Risk Management for USAID Projects and Activities, that in order to develop a CRMP, the CRMP process and results — including identified climate risks, risk ratings, how risks are addressed, opportunities, and any further analysis needed — must be documented in the PADs and IEEs. However, the IEE provided as part of the RFP (Attachment J.6) does not include reference or discussion to the CRMP process and results, making the development of a CRMP at the proposal stage challenging due to a lack of necessary documentation. Would USAID consider removing the requirement for a CRMP to be presented as part of the technical proposal, and instead confirm that the CRMP should be prepared and submitted post-award per Section F.6.B.3 and once the USAID/DRC Health Office Portfolio IEE is amended to include the CRMP documentation?

Answer: The requirement for a Climate Risk Mitigation Plan (CRMP) is hereby deleted from the RFP. The CRMP for this project will be prepared and submitted post-award once the USAID/DRC Health Office Portfolio IEE has been amended. The following language is hereby updated in the RFP:

L.6.4.3 C. Draft AMEP (Section M.4, Sub-Criteria 2.3) “The draft AMEP must include an appropriate set of indicators and/or benchmarks that will allow USAID and the Offeror to measure progress toward achieving activity results.

Indicators must link clearly to the Objectives and Intermediate Results of the RFP. Please note that if the post-award screening under the Climate Risk Management (CRM) shows that the activity will have a medium risk on climate change, then the offeror should identify post-award at least one standard or custom indicator to ensure that climate change is integrated in the activity. ” and

“J.1.6 OPERATING CONSTRAINTS

Constraint 1: Programmatic Approaches Climate Change Adaptation: IHP-DRC must be robust in the face of potential climate change impacts. In 2014 U.S. President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on Climate- Resilient International Development which directs federal agencies to systematically factor climate resilience into their international development programs and investments. Therefore, the contractor shall identify post-award expected climate change impacts over the life of the Activity’s expected benefits and demonstrate how those risks will be reduced in order to ensure sustainability of the activity’s objectives by completing with the COR, MEO, RA assistance a Climate Risk Management plan post-award.

Climate Change Mitigation: If the post-award screening under CRM shows that the activity will have a medium risk on climate change, then the following applies: the contractor should identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and propose low-emissions approaches where possible. This may include opportunities around [provide sector specific examples such as avoided deforestation or degradation, mangrove or rangeland rehabilitation, energy efficiency, soil carbon preservation farming techniques, etc.].”

and

“L.6.2 - Organization of Technical Proposal The following must be presented as Annexes and are not included in the technical proposal page limit:

● Draft Year 1 Work Plan

● Resumes for Key Personnel

● Statement of Intention and Availability for Key Personnel

● Contractor Performance Information

● Preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP)

● Subcontracting Plan with U.S. small businesses, if required

● Preliminary Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP)

● Procurement Plan”

42. For clarity and ease of presentation of items listed as included and not included in the page limit in Section L.6.2, Organization of Technical Proposal, may we present the technical proposal in the following order?

1. Cover Letter (maximum 1 page) (not included in page limit)

2. Table of Contents (not included in page limit)

3. Acronym List (not included in page limit)

4. Executive Summary (maximum 2 pages, included in the page limit)

5. Technical Approach and Understanding

i. Technical Approach Narrative (included in page limit)

6. Program Management

i. Management Plan Narrative (included in page limit)

7. Capabilities and Key Personnel

i. Capabilities and Key Personnel Narrative (included in page limit)

8. Past Performance (not included in page limit)

9. Performance Work Statement (PWS) (maximum 30 pages) (not included in page limit) Annexes (not included in the technical proposal page limit):

● Draft Year 1 Work Plan (maximum 30 pages; not included in page limit)

● Draft Award Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) (not included in page limit)

● Resumes for Key Personnel (maximum 3 pages each; not included in page limit)

● Statement of Intention and Availability for Key Personnel (maximum 1 page each;

not included in page limit)

● Contractor Performance Information

● Preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP)

● Subcontracting Plan with U.S. small businesses, if required

Answer: Offeror is to submit the required documents in accordance with RFP Sections L.6.2

- Organization of Technical Proposal and L.6.4 Technical Proposal. The Draft AMEP and PWS may be submitted as Annexes to the Technical Proposal.

43. In Section L.6.2, Organization of the Technical Proposal, resumes and references are given a maximum of three pages for each key personnel, not included in the page limit. On page 130, Section L.6.4.4.B references are said to be part of the 30 page narrative limit, not to exceed three pages. Please clarify.

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 2 above.

44. Sections L.6.2 (page 123) and Section L.7 (page 133) instruct offerors to submit a

Subcontracting Plan with U.S. Small Businesses in the technical proposal. Subcontracting plans must indicate the total value of the contract (i.e., offeror’s proposed price) in order to indicate small business utilization goals by percentage (reference Subcontracting Plan model in Attachment J.7 of RFP, page 200). Requiring offerors to submit a subcontracting plan in the technical proposal is different from the instructions in Section L.5.3 (page 119), which states that “Technical Proposals must not make reference to pricing data …” Given that offerors are already required to submit a subcontracting plan in the cost proposal, we respectfully request that USAID remove the requirement to submit a subcontracting plan in the technical proposal.

Answer: The final paragraph of Section L.6.2 and the final row of the chart located in Section L.7 are hereby replaced with the following language in order to delete the reference to “Subcontracting Plan with U.S. small businesses, if required”:

“L.6.2 - Organization of Technical Proposal The following must be presented as Annexes and are not included in the technical proposal page limit:

● Draft Year 1 Work Plan

● Resumes for Key Personnel

● Statement of Intention and Availability for Key Personnel

● Contractor Performance Information

● Preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and a Marking Plan (MP)

● Procurement Plan” and

“L.7 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CROSS-

REFERENCES

Past Use of Small Business (SB) Concerns (large businesses only)

L.6.4.5 f) M.4.4

45. Section L.6.4.5, Past Performance, says a “total of five” PPRs are to be provided by the offeror and major subcontractors, but Section L.8, Instructions for the Past Performance Questions, says that offerors and major subcontractors will submit their three references to USAID. Are the five PPRs required for the consortium as a whole, or does each prime and major subcontractor need to submit five?

Answer: Section L.6.4.5 Past Performance (Section M.4, Criteria 4) a) and b) are hereby replaced with the following language:

a) The Offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) shall provide past performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (a subcontractor whose proposed cost exceeds $15,500,000 of the offeror’s total proposed cost in accordance with the requirements described below.

b) Provide a total of three (3) of the most relevant contracts (preferred) and/or assistance agreements in terms of size, scope and complexity performed over the past three (3) years by the Offeror and major subcontractors each. The Offeror shall indicate which past performances are listed in /PPIRS. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar scope of work, magnitude, complexity/diversity of tasks, contract type and skills/ expertise required and location of work performed. Past performances shall demonstrate the ability to work in environments similar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

46. Section L.6.4.5, Past Performance, requests a copy of subcontracting reports not submitted to the eSRS for the last three years. Our hardcopy subcontracting reports, SF-294s, for the past three years total more than 800 pages and comprise more than 40 MB. In addition to the hardcopy SF-294s for projects not registered in the eSRS, we have also submitted individual subcontracting reports through the eSRS for registered projects. Instead of submitting the electronic files totaling 40 MB with 800 pages of SF-294 reports and a listing of eSRS reports, may we submit only a list of 10 relevant eSRS reports and a copy of 10 SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

Answer: Please save the files in a zip folder and submit electronically with the proposal.

USAID will not be responsible for errors in compiling electronic offers.

47. In both the summary budget in Section L.10 and the J.8 attachment, Grants under Contract, are not listed as a line item. Please confirm that offerors should include Grants under Contract as an additional line item in response to both Section L.10 and the J.8 attachment.

Answer: Please see answer to Question 14 above.

48. Given the high dollar value and extended period of performance, standardized (or “plug”) figures for both grants and procurement (including commodities, if required) will result in more comparable budgets for evaluation purposes. We respectfully request a standardized figure and/or range for grants and procurement under this contract.

Answer: No. USAID will not provide standardized figures for both grants and procurement items.

49. Amendment 1 extended the proposal due date to March 27, 2017; please confirm that the deadline for receiving the past performance questionnaires (Attachment J.5) has also been extended to March 27, 2017.

Answer: The deadline for receiving the past performance questionnaires is hereby extended to April 10, 2017.

50. Section L.6.1, item 3 states, “The English version of the technical proposal is the official submission and must conform to all the requirements set forth in this RFP. The page limit of the English technical proposal narrative is 30 pages.” Would USAID confirm that the page restriction specified in item 3 applies only to the English version of the proposal, and that the French version may exceed the 30 pages as long as it does not contain any information that is not also in the English submission?

Answer: USAID hereby confirms that the page restriction in Section L.6.1 item 3 applies only to the English version of the proposal and that the French version must not contain any information that is not also in the English submission.

51. On page 123 of the RFP, Section L.6.1, item 4 states, “Offerors shall submit a French translation of the English technical proposal narrative.” Would USAID please confirm it is defining “technical proposal narrative” as item 5.i. Technical Approach Narrative under Section L.6.2?

Answer: USAID confirms that the French translation applies to item 5i in Section L.6.2, which is the Technical Approach Narrative, as described in Section L.6.4.2A.

52. Would USAID allow Offerors to submit additional Annexes to those listed on page 124 under Section L.6.2?

Answer: As stated in Section L.6.1, “Any content not within the page limits or annexes specified below will not be evaluated.”

53. Section L.6.2 (pages 123-124) describes the organization of the Technical Proposal, including the Annexes. There are several components that appear listed as part of both the main body of the Technical Proposal and the Annexes, including the Draft Year 1 Work Plan, Resumes and References for Key Personnel, and Statements of Intention and Availability for Key Personnel. Would USAID please confirm that items that appear in both places (1) do not count toward the 30 page limit and (2) can be located in the Annexes to the Technical Proposal? Furthermore, can sections that do not count towards the 30 page limit (e.g., the PWS, the AMEP, and Past Performance) be provided as Annexes to the Technical Proposal rather than as part of the main body of the proposal?

Answer: Offeror is to submit the required documents and follow the page limitations listed therein in accordance with RFP Sections L.6.2 - Organization of Technical Proposal and L.6.4 Technical Proposal. The Draft AMEP, Past Performance, and PWS may be submitted as Annexes to the Technical Proposal.

54. One of the required Annexes (listed on page 124) is the Subcontracting Plan with U.S. small businesses. As the Subcontracting Plan includes budget figures, would USAID please confirm that it should be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal?

Answer: Please see answer to Question 44 above.

55. One of the required Annexes (listed on page 124) is Contractor Performance Information.

Would USAID provide more information on what content this Annex should contain as well as the criteria USAID will use to evaluate this Annex?

Answer: Please see Section L.6.4.5 Past Performance of the RFP for information on the content of the Contractor Performance Information. Please see Section M.4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 4. Past Performance for how Past Performance will be evaluated.

56. On page 131, Section L.6.4.5, item “c” lists (1-10) the information that must be provided for past performances not found in PPIRS. The RFP also includes Attachment J.5 – Past Performance Questionnaire, which asks Offerors, or Referees, to, “send the filled out questionnaire directly to” USAID/DRC. Would USAID please confirm that:

1) it would like Offerors to provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire— specifically Section A—for each project submitted as a past performance;

2) for past performances that are not in PPIRS, Offerors should include both sub-items 1-10 listed under Section L.6.4.5, item “c” in addition to a Past Performance Questionnaire; and

3) Past Performance Questionnaires should be inserted directly into the Past Performance section of the Technical Proposal?

Answer: Attachment J.5 is to be submitted by Referees, or references of the Offeror - not the Offeror itself. Please see Section L.6.4.5 Past Performance for information on submission requirements for projects that are and are not listed in PPIRS.

57. Attachment J.5 – Past Performance Questionnaire has two sections: Section A which is to be filled out by the Referee and Section B which is to be filled out by the contact person named in Section A. Would USAID please confirm if “Referee” is synonymous with the Offeror or one of if its major subcontractors, and, if so, does the Referee have to sign each Past Performance Questionnaire that it submits as part of the Technical Proposal (as indicated by the Signature of the Referee line)?

Answer: USAID confirms that “Referee” is synonymous with a reference for the Offeror, and not the Offeror itself. The Referee must sign each Past Performance Questionnaire that is submitted as part of the Technical Proposal.

58. On page 124, Section L.6.4 states that, “each section and sub-section of the Technical Proposal must be organized by region (Kasais, Katanga, Eastern Congo).” Would USAID please confirm that this requirement applies only to Technical Approach and Understanding section (comprised of the Technical Approach Narrative and the PWS)?

Answer: USAID confirms that the requirement only applies to the Technical Approach and Understanding Section.

59. Section L.6.4.3 lists the components of the Program Management section as: (A) Program Management Plan, (B) Draft Year 1 Work Plan, (C) Award Monitoring and Evaluation (AMEP) Summary Narrative, and (D) Draft AMEP. However, Sections L.6.4.3.A, B, and C (pages 127-129), which explain the contents of each component, make no reference the “AMEP Summary Narrative.” Would USAID please confirm that the AMEP Summary

Narrative is part of the overall Draft AMEP and not a separate component of the Program Management section?

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 1 above.

60. Page 130, Section L.6.4.5, item “B” requires that Offerors, “provide no more than 5 total past performances for the entire team.” Page 133, Section L.8 calls on the Offeror to “forward the past performance questionnaire (Attachment J.4) for itself and any proposed major subcontractors, to three (3) references”. Would USAID please clarify if Offerors should submit a total of five or three past performances for itself and any major subcontractors?

Answer: Please see the answer to Questions 6 and 45 above.

61. On pages 133-134, Section L.8, says Offerors should “forward the past performance questionnaire (Attachment J.4) for itself and any proposed major subcontractors, to…references” with instructions to submit the completed questionnaire directly to USAID/DRC. Section L.6.4.5, item g (p. 132) says that Offerors only need to alert the contacts listed in their past performance questionnaires for “if and when requested by USAID” to serve as a reference. Would USAID prefer to solicit feedback from the provided references or that the references send their completed questionnaires to USAID/DRC directly?

Answer: Please have references submit the completed questionnaires to USAID/DRC directly.

62. Is the Cover Page mentioned under L.5.5. (b) on page 120 the same thing as the Cover Letter that is required for the technical proposal (listed on page 123)?

Answer: Yes.

63. Could USAID clarify whether or not it requires a section on the Offeror’s institutional capability within the technical proposal?

Answer: Please see RFP Section L.6.4.3 Program Management.

64. Section F.12, item “a” states that an Offeror may suggest additional Key Personnel to the three listed (i.e., Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and Director of Finance and Administration) according to its approach. Will additional proposed Key Personnel be held to a language proficiency requirement?

65. On page 158, Table 1 contains the indicator “Percentage of women 15-19 years attending at least one ANC visit with the assistance of a trained healthcare provider.” How does USAID anticipate that this indicator might change given the new WHO guidelines that recommend a return to 8 ANC visits?

Answer: When and if the indicator changes, USAID and the contractor will determine how this will affect the implementation of the contract activities and its outcomes.

66. Section J.1.6 (p. 163) states, “IHP-DRC will be implemented as three regional activities— IHP-Kasai, IHP-Katanga, and IHP-Eastern Congo”. The RFP goes on to say that IHP-Kasai will work in five provinces (Kasai Oriental, Lomami, Sankuru, Kasai Central, and Kasai) and also that, “Attachment J.13 contains an illustrative categorized list of target health zones.”

Attachment J.13 lists the health zones per province; however, the Kasai province is not included. Would USAID clarify if IHP is expected to work in any health zones in the Kasai province, and, if so, which health zones?

Answer: Reference to Kasai Province in Section J.1.2 “IHP-Kasai, which will work in the provinces of Kasai Oriental, Lomami, Sankuru, Kasai Central, and Kasai” and in Section J.1.6 “IHP-Kasai, which will work in the provinces of Kasai Oriental, Lomami, Sankuru, Kasai Central, and Kasai,” is hereby deleted.

67. On page 164, under Section J.1.6, the RFP states, “USAID/DRC will procure family planning, TB, MCH and malaria commodities through a centrally-managed supply chain mechanism (GHSC-PSM).” How will the commodities not specifically listed in the RFP be procured, for example essential generic medicines that do not appear to fall within the listed items above?

Answer: At this time, USAID does not anticipate that IHP-DRC will procure any commodities.

68. For IRs 1.8, 2.7, and 3.4, what are USAID’s expectations for these IRs, particularly the scope and level of collaboration?

Answer: USAID expects IHP-DRC to play a facilitative role for sharing best practices between USAID intervention zones listed in the RFP, as well as, between USAID and other donor zones. USAID expects the lessons learned from the operational level to be communicated to the provincial level and back to the central level to influence policy dialogue.

69. The RFP indicates that the 60 full support health zones will have nutrition activities, while the minimum support health zones will not. If Offerors are expected to promote more integration of MNCH and nutrition, are they then able to use “other” funds for technical areas that may receive less funding but that must be integrated? For instance, using the funds set aside for MCH (42%) for nutrition activities since the two are linked?

Answer: The Offeror is expected to use health funds in strict accordance with Agency Policy (ADS) and guidance including its mandatory references.

70. On page 130 of the RFP, USAID states that the "offeror must also include a letter of commitment signed by each person proposed as Key Personnel confirming their intention to serve in the stated position immediately upon award and their availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract." Would USAID confirm that, for the purpose of the proposal, “the term of the proposed contract” should be understood as the four base years, and not the full seven years?

Answer: Four years is acceptable.

71. On page 128, the RFP mentions that the “draft AMEP must include the Offeror’s proposed results framework or logical framework, preliminary targets for the life of the project and Year 1 ”. Would USAID clarify if the “life of the project” refers to the end of the four base years or at the end of the seventh year?

Answer: The term of the proposed contract is seven (7) years.

72. On page 160, the RFP states that, “IHP-DRC will increase the level of performance for each indicator to double the baseline level for each health zone in which it intervenes.” This assumes that all indicators are similar for all three regions and with values low enough at baseline that it is feasible for them to double by the end of IHP-DRC. Would USAID consider revising this to state that USAID/DRC expects realistic and achievable targets to allow contractors to work with the Mission in setting realistic and achievable targets for each indicator? Furthermore, given that only 60 are full support zones and the remainder are minimum support, does USAID expect that results will be the same for all indicators where activities will not be implemented that have an impact on all indicators (i.e., that the baseline for every indicator will be doubled)?

Answer: USAID expects realistic and ambitious targets within the geographical and technical areas supported. As described in RFP Section J.1.5 PERFORMANCE GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND TARGETS, located on pages 160 and 168, the baseline will be…