Amendment 12.pdf

June 28, 2012 USAID Global Health Technical Assistance ‐‐ RFP# SOL‐OAA‐12‐000025 Questions & Answers Page 1

1. C.2.1.2 omitted the Avian Influenza (only 8 health elements are described in C.2.1.2). What are USAID's specific goals and targets with respect to Avian Influenza? This is an important question for our proposals since we must demonstrate a technical understanding of the Avian Influenza, among the 9 health elements, and so USAID's goals and targets with respect to this are a key part of this understanding. These specific goals and targets are also not obvious.

2. The USAID Evaluation Policy says under the topic, Basic Organizational Roles and Responsibilities: Ensure through the Program Office, that evaluation final reports (or reports submitted to evaluators to USAID as their final drafts) and their summaries are submitted within three months of completion to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at http://dec.usaid.gov. The USAID Policy Framework then says under the topic, Strengthening Monitoring and Evaluation: We will also ensure that final evaluation reports and their summaries are submitted within three months of completion to the Development Experience Clearinghouse. If there is such a 3 month deadline on the submission of these various documents to the DEC, and if the USAID Administrator is so intent on achieving this goal, shouldn't it and the fact that the contractor will need to submit to DEC their final reports, final draft documents, and also summaries, all within 3 months, be added to the deliverables table in F.13? F.14 does talk about the

1. C.2.1.2 refers to the USG Global Health Initiative (GHI) and is correct. The GHI does not have a goal for Avian and Pandemic Influenza (API). Additional information regarding API can be found on the USAID website at:

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/home/News/n ews_items/avian_influenza.html

2. The USAID Evaluation Policy does not create any new deliverables under this contract. Section F.14 is a requirement of the contract and not a deliverable. It requires the contractor to submit to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) “copies” and lists examples of items that should be submitted. These items may or may not be applicable to this contract. The table in Section F.13 lists reports, evaluation, assessments, etc. that are included and pertinent to this award. F.14 further states “Information may be obtained from the Contraction Officer’s Representative (COR).

Questions & Answers Page 2 submission to DEC, but neither mentions the 3 month deadline, nor does it make it a requirement to submit final drafts and summaries to DEC in addition to the final reports.

3. Question: Will the ADS 548 requirements for Independent

Verification and Validation Reviews by M/CIO/BCCS be incorporated into any award?

4. Regarding Amendment 3 -

a. Answer to question #1 (p. 1) and RFP Amendment 9, C.4.3(B) (p. 16): The Government states, "For purposes of this contract, Global Health services/activities shall be defined as those that support the USAID health development program or those funded in full or partially with USAID health development funds." This is inconsistent with Section C.4.3(B) which instead states, "The program/project/activity is funded in full or in part by the U.S. Congress’ appropriations designated or earmarked for health-related purposes..." Can the Government confirm that the answer to question #1 no longer is valid?

b. Answer to question #3 (p. 2) and RFP Amendment 9, C.4.3(B) (p. 16): This answer states that the contractor is excluded from other USAID health work that is NOT a result of GH Tech work. However, Section C.4.3(B) only excludes contracts for USAID health-related work that is a direct Congressional appropriation or earmark. Can the Government confirm that the answer to question #3 no longer is valid?

3. We do not plan to incorporate ADS 548 requirements into this award at this time, but we may incorporate ADS 548 into this award at a later date.

4. Regarding Amendment 3 –

a. Correct. The language in RFP Amendment 9 supersedes the answer to question 1 in RFP Amendment 3.

b. Correct. The language in RFP Amendment 9 supersedes the answer to question 3 in RFP Amendment 3.

Questions & Answers Page 3

c. Answer to question #4 (p. 3): Question #4 asks if the GH Tech OCI extends to health-related support activities (staffing, evaluation, knowledge management, research, etc.) to which the Government answered yes. Can the Government clarify if this answer is still correct in the context of the changes to the RFP in Amendment 9?

d. Answer to question #12 (p. 4): Question #12 asks if a

Prime or Subcontractor on another health-related bid with USAID would have to withdraw their proposals to bid on GH Tech, to which the Government answered yes, they would be obliged to withdraw their proposal. Can the Government clarify if this answer would still be correct for a company submitting a GH Tech bid as Prime Contractor? Would they still be required to withdraw all of their proposals for other USAID health procurements in progress?

c. Yes

d. The answer to Question 4.d is: A company submitting a GH Tech bid as Prime Contractor is not required to withdraw proposals for other USAID health procurements in order to be permitted to bid on GH Tech. However, if that company’s proposal for GH Tech results in an Award, then the company would be required to withdraw any outstanding proposals for other USAID health procurements.

e. H.12(b) requires that, post award, subcontractors submit a mitigation plan to USAID before it receives its award. If the plan is not approved by USAID, the subcontractor must be terminated under this contract before it receives the health-related contract, cooperative agreement or grant.

Questions & Answers Page 4

e. Answer to question #43 (p. 9): In response to a vendor question concerning the adequacy of firewalling mechanisms for firewalling off subcontractors from financial and programmatic information in GH Tech so that they can bid on other Global Health Bureau projects, can the Government confirm that as a result of Amendment 9, this is now allowed.

5. Regarding Amendment 4:

a. Answer to question #2 (p. 1) and #3 (p. 1): In answer to a vendor question concerning the technology stack for the current consultant database, the Government identified the current technology and software/systems vendor. If the new contractor were to conduct an assessment specified in Section C.6.5 and determined that no changes are required, can the Government clarify the process by which a new contractor would take over the existing database? Is the Government the holder of the software license(s) (for PeopleMatrix, Microsoft SQL Server 2005, Windows Server 2003, etc.)? Would these software license(s) be transferred to the new contractor?

Would the contractor be required to buy/acquire their own license(s)?

b. Answer to question #13 (p. 3): In answer to a vendor question, the Government states that the labor distribution chart of L.9.4 should show the percentage each firm on the team will complete. Can the Government please confirm that this refers to percentage of headquarters staff labor only (not including tasks, activities, travel, etc.)? Do these provided percentage

5. Regarding Amendment 4:

a. F.7 outlines the process for transferring the GH Tech database. The Government is not holder of the software licenses. The Government does not have a preference as to whether the software licenses are transferred or acquired as new licenses.

b. L.9.4 requires an annex covering all labor, including in-house staff and consultants, and for the full life of the contract.

Questions & Answers Page 5 refer to all 5 years of the contract, or only the base year?

c. Answer to question #14 (p. 4): In answer to a vendor question, the Government the narrative overview on the 40 illustrative consultants may not be provided in matrix form. May an offeror provide a one-page matrix/table which supplements, but is not intended to be a substitute for, their narrative overview on consultants?

d. Answer to question #16 (p. 4): In answer to a vendor question, the Government states, "Rarely, there may be a need, as depicted in this section, for the Contractor to provide local, in-country office space for one to five people for short periods of time." Can the Government confirm that the Contractor will not be providing standing (semi-permanent) GH Tech offices in countries with many projects, such as India? If there is the expectation that GH Tech would provide permanent office space in certain countries, then this is information the incumbent would know based on the number of projects they are handling, and outside offerors would not have information to be able to estimate this properly. If there are any permanent or semi-permanent GH Tech offices (for example to handle logistics in certain countries), then we would ask that the Government provide us with enough information with which these may be sized and estimated. For example, the Government could provide 36 months of history on actual GH Tech projects, listing all the projects and for each project, provide the size (small, medium, and large), the work category, and the country in which they are

c. No. Answer to question #14 (p. 4) states “No, this information cannot be provided in matrix form.”

d. C.4.2.4 and Question #16 (p. 4) provided sufficient explanation of the requirement for in-country office space to enable offerors to prepare their offers and ruled-out any space needs beyond for “short periods of time.” Because the costs for these in-country services were already covered in the plug figures provided by the Government to offerors in L.10(b), there is no purpose served by having the Government provide the historical information suggested in Question #16.

Questions & Answers Page 6 conducted.

e. Answer to question #35 (p. 11) and RFP Amendment 9, L.1 52.222-46 (p. 81) and L.10(b)(Note 9) (p. 99): The vendor question asked where the "Total Compensation Plan" required by Section L.1 52.222-46 should be placed in the proposal. The Government's answer to this question was "Please see L.10 on Page 100."

Unfortunately, this answer is not clear. Section L.10 on page 100 states, "Offerors must submit a Cost/Business Proposal and include the information below." However, below that, it does not state in which section or annex the Prime Contractor's "Total Compensation Plan" should be inserted. Can the Government clarify its answer? For example, should the Total Compensation Plan be provided by the Prime as part of its response to L.10(b)(Note 9)?

6.Regarding Amendment 5:

a. Answer to question #79: Answer 79 refers to the following RFP sections: Sections C.5 (page 20), F.6 (page 33), and L.9.3 (page 98) where indeed it does discuss the key personnel. The answer given does NOT address the question, either directly OR in the sections quoted. We are aware of those sections, and this was the purpose of the clarifying question--to wit: “if an Offeror may propose more than two key personnel if that should be part of the Offeror's unique solution to the Government's expressed needs?” As this has been a key consideration of our envisioned solution for which there is substantial writing--the answer to this is absolutely

e. Yes, the Total Compensation Plan shall be provided by the

Prime as part of its response to L.10(b)Note 9.

6. Regarding Amendment 5:

a. C.5.2, F.6, and L.9.3 are clear. Offerors may propose only the two key personnel required in the RFP.

Questions & Answers Page 7 imperative given the short time remaining. It would deleteriously affect our solution if we had to change our assumptions based on the continuing lack of a response on this issue. Can the Government clarify its answers to question #79 and answer whether an offeror may offer a unique solution which has a different number of key personnel than two?

b. Answer to question #81: Answer 81, which refers to

Question 81 on the Key Personnel and whether they are intended to be full-time--does NOT answer the question, nor does the referenced section (C.5) make any mention in reference to this issue. Please clarify as a key approach in our solution depends on the flexibility afforded in addressing these positions. The shortness of time and the incompleteness of this answer does not provide us with much time to address changes given the uncertainties on this issue. Can the Government clarify its answers to question #81?

c. Answer to question #82: Answer 82, referring itself to

Answer 81, also does NOT answer the question, either directly or by reference. Can the Government clarify its answers to question #82?

d. Answer to questions #83 - 91: Answers 83-91 inclusive, all make reference to Answer 81 which as stated above is does not provide a clear answer to the question--therefore it means that NONE of those questions, which are critical to a envisioned solution, have been answered--and remain uncertainties to the proper and timely submission

b. C.5 is clear. Offerors must provide key personnel on a full-time basis.

c. C.5.2 is clear. Offerors must provide two key personnel.

d. C.5.2 is clear. Question #83 and #84: Offerors must provide two key personnel and may not subdivide the responsibilities assigned to them. Question #85 and #86:

Minimum qualifications for each required staff members must be met or exceeded with no exceptions. Question #87: The qualifications required in the RFP are clear, and

Questions & Answers Page 8 of our response. Can the Government clarify its answers to questions #83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91?

e. Answer to question #107 (p. 37): The vendor question asked for the definition of the terms, "period" and "source" in Section B.4. The Government's answer to this question was "Please see L.10 on page 100 of the RFP."

However, unfortunately, Section L.10 does not state a definition for either--in fact it doesn't mention either word at all. "Period" can be safely presumed to mean "Period of Performance" or "Period of Validity" of the indirect rate, but what is "Source"? Can the Government clarify the latter?

f. Answer to question #110: Answer 110 is not clear. Can the types of demonstrated experience to be put forward by the Offeror are those which best provide evidence that the candidate meets the Government’s requirement. Question #88: The Government assumes that consultants will not be employees of the Contractor and, most typically, will be self-employed contractors who are individuals recruited for short-term assignments. Question #89: C.5.2.2 refers to the negotiations with consultants (and not negotiations with the Government). Question #90: The scopes of work in C.5.2.2 that are developed and reviewed by the Deputy Director and Evaluation Advisor will also become assignments of the Contractor under this contract.

Question #91: The duties of other staff members include, but are not limited to, the planning, administrative and management activities described as Steps 1 through 8 in section C.6.5, Typical Assignment Responsibilities. The duties of consultants include, but are not limited to, completing the activities described in section C.4.4.

e. In B.4, the term “Source” refers to the form of documentation or name of the authorized authority granting the offeror’s Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

(NICRA).

f. In B.8, the Government will not clarify final patent and

Questions & Answers Page 9 you please clarify what “NO Post Award” means? Does it mean that there will be NO post award patent and royalty reports? Or does it mean that the government will NOT clarify said reports until Post Award?

7. Regarding Amendment 9, Section:

a. C.2.1.1 (p. 8) and C.2.1.2 (pp. 9-10): Section C.2.1.1 states there are nine Health Elements and includes Avian Influenza (AI), but section C.2.1.1 states, "The following Health Element-specific goals and targets have been defined for the GHI:" and then goes on to list only eight goals and targets, leaving out AI. Can the Government please confirm that AI is indeed a health element?

b. C.4.1 (pp. 14-15) and Annex 2 (pp. 111-112): Section

C.4.1 states, "The Contractor shall identify appropriate staff or consultants with the required expertise, availability, language proficiencies, and experience ...

where appropriate and as requested by the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COR)." Can the Government please confirm that when it is appropriate that the COR request specific expertise and proficiencies, that they will either be taken from illustrative lists in Annex 2 (pp. 111-112) or if some of the required specific expertise and proficiencies do not appear in Annex 2, that then the Government will provide significantly more time for recruitment of any such resource than the "one to two weeks prior to the requested implementation start date" that are specified in Section C.4.1?

royalty reports until Post Award.

7. Regarding Amendment 9, Section:

a. Avian Influenza is a Health Element, not a goal of the GHI.

b. The term “Illustrative” with respect to Annex 2 means this is a list of sample labor categories but that the contract requirement is not limited to only those categories. The time requirement shall not be different as between labor categories in Annex 2 and those not in Annex 2.

Questions & Answers Page 10

c. C.4.3 (p. 16): Section C.4.3 states, "...program/project/activity that meets the following two criteria". Can the Government clarify if it means "...program/project/activity that meets either of the following two criteria" or "...program/project/activity that meets both of the following two criteria" here?

d. C.4.3(A) (p. 16): Section C.4.3(A) states, "The program/project/activity is awarded by a USAID operating unit..." Can the Government confirm that it did not intend to further restrict this sentence to health-related programs/projects/activities, for example by instead writing, "The program/project/activity is health-related and is awarded by a USAID operating unit..."?

e. C.4.3(B) (p. 16) and H.12 (p. 47): Section C.4.3(B) states, "The program/project/activity is funded in full or in part by the U.S. Congress’ appropriations designated or earmarked for health-related purposes..." The phrase "in part" in this sentence adds ambiguity. While it is assumed that the Government would be able to apply this definition without error, this is not always true for contractors. Often it is not clear to a contractor (and especially a subcontractor) on a given USAID project if funds were blended, and if funds were indeed blended, if in fact funds from a health-related Congressional appropriation or earmark happened to be included in the blend. An example might serve to make this point more clear. Many GH Tech projects themselves appear to be

c. C.4.3 is clear. The two criteria in C.4.3 are joined with the word “and,” and the Contractor shall meet both criteria.

This amendment further clarifies the definition by adding the following:

definition.

d. C.4.3 is clear. Part A refers to who made the award; Part B refers to who funded the award. The Government did not intend to further restrict this sentence.

e. The data are not available for the Government to publish such a comprehensive list of the USAID programs/projects/activities in the last 36 months which were funded in full or in part by the U.S. Congress’ appropriations designated or earmarked for health-related purposed. Note that Missions and headquarters units have the same types of Congressionally-earmarked health funds in any given year. Contractors can readily ascertain whether a given agreement has health-related funding, be it from headquarters or Missions. One source of the information is the Contractor’s contract modification providing incremental funds to a contract. This document includes a detailed listing of the amount and types of funding being added to the contract, for both GH funds and

Questions & Answers Page 11 wholly funded directly out of mission funding. If a contractor is working on such a project, what would prevent that contractor from being excluded from offering on this acquisition because unbeknownst to them, a small portion of the funds from the GHCS subaccount were blended/pooled into what they thought was mission-only funding? While Section H.12(b) does provide for a Government review of a procurement to determine any conflict, it only applies to post-award.

There is no provision for the Government to review procurements pre-award to determine if an offeror may even submit an offer, or not based on possible conflicts.

We request that the Government either establish a "bright-line" test which may be applied by any offeror unequivocally to determine if they or their subcontractors fall under the sway of Section C.4.3(B) based on their past/present USAID programs/projects/activities, or failing that, publish a comprehensive list of the USAID programs/projects/activities in the last 36 months which were indeed "funded in full or in part by the U.S. Congress’ appropriations designated or earmarked for health-related purposes".

f. C.4.3(B) (p. 16): Many USAID programs have a clear health component yet may not meet the standard in C.4.3(B). For example, a recent active USAID solicitation (SOL-521-12-000038) for Haiti is focused on "Post-Earthquake Strategy for Renewal and Economic Opportunity in Haiti". However, the solicitation states, "USAID requires the services of a Contractor to provide Specialists to counterpart organizations addressing

Mission funds. From this document it is possible for a Contractor to identify a funding stream, whether from GH or from a Mission, as “health-related” and linked to a specific health element.

f. If an Offeror for this solicitation was awarded also the illustrative Haiti contract given under “f”, example, the holder of the Haiti contract in the question could readily confirm whether the award received health-related funding.

Questions & Answers Page 12 agreed programmatic objectives of: More Responsive Governance and Improved Rule of Law; Increased Food and Economic Security; Improved Health Status and Learning Environment; and, Improved Infrastructure that Supports Community and Commercial Development."

However, nowhere in the solicitation document is it made clear if funds for this procurement received funds from health-related Congressional appropriations/earmarks.

Would such a solicitation as SOL-521-12-000038 be counted as "health-related" with respect to Section C.4.3(B)?

g. H.15(c) (p. 49) and F.13 (pp. 35-36): Section H.15(c) states, "THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE A

PROPERLY EXECUTED COPY OF ALL SUCH

AGREEMENTS TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER."

However, copies of these documents are not listed in the table of deliverables of Section F.13. Can the Government add these documents to the table in Section F.13?

h. H.18(a) (p. 50) and F.13 (p. 35-36): The annual report in

Section H.18(a) is a contract deliverable it appears, and as such, would the Government add this report to the list of deliverables in Section F.13?

i. H.23(2) (p. 53) and F.13 (p. 35-36): The IT property records in Section H.23(2) is a contract deliverable it appears, and as such, would the Government add this report to the list of deliverables in Section F.13?

g. The contract contains numerous required forms of documentation. The Offeror is responsible to review those requirements throughout the Contract and submit the required documentation. The Government does not represent that the listing in F.13 is a comprehensive listing of the required forms and documentation for this contract.

The documents referenced in H.15(c) are requirements and not deliverables.

h. See answer to Question 7.g.H.18 refers the annual report of foreign taxes and is a requirement, not a deliverable.

i. See answer to Question 7.g.

Questions & Answers Page 13

8. Regarding Amendment 5, March 15:

Answer to question #5 (p. 2): The vendor question asked "RFP, B.3 table (p. 5): Can the Government please clarify if the values to be put by the Offeror in the table in Section B.3 are to be computed from the table in Section B.4 (p. 5), or from the table of ceiling rates in Section B.5(a)(3) (p. 6)? (Q10)" The Government's answer to this question was "Please see Page 2 of the RFP." Page 2 of the original RFP and the subsequent revised RFPs (Amendment 6 and 9) is the first page of the Contracting Officer cover letter. This cover letter does not contain information on how to complete Section B.4. The Government's answer appears to not address the actual question, possibly because the question was not clear. The question will probably be more clear with the following hypothetical example. What is meant is that Section B.4 has the offeror's approved computed indirect rates. For example, an offeror might have calculated that its G&A was 25% and this would be in B.4. Section B.5 would have that offeror's proposed ceiling rates, which hypothetically could be 30% for G&A. So in this hypothetical case, would that offeror use 25% (their actual indirect rate from B.4) or 30% (their proposed ceiling indirect rate from B.5) to insert into B.3 for the value G&A?

9. Answer to question #25 (pp. 7-8): The vendor question asked if the index for the DEC to meet the requirement of Section F.14(a)(2) could be added to the table in Section

Answer: Sections B.3 Estimate Cost, Fixed Fee, and Ceiling will be determined through negotiations and will become part of the award document to the successful offerorIf the offeror has a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with USAID or an equivalent with another US government agency, that pre-negotiated information and will be entered into B.4 at the time of award. If not, then the indirect rate will be negotiated and entered into the award document.

9. See answer to question 2 above.

Questions & Answers Page 14

F.13. The Government's answer to this question was "Yes." However, as of Amendment 9, this item has not been added to Section F.13 of the RFP.

10. Answer to question #36 (pp. 11-12) and RFP Amendment 9, L.1 52.237-10(f) (p. 81) and L.10(b)(Note 9) (p. 99): The vendor question asked where the "Uncompensated Overtime Policy" required by Section L.1 52.237-10(f) should be placed in the proposal. The Government's answer to this question was "Please see Answer 35", which in turn stated "Please see L.10 on Page 100." Unfortunately, this answer is not clear. Section L.10 on page 100 states, "Offerors must submit a Cost/Business Proposal and include the information below." However, below that, it does not state in which section or annex the Prime Contractor's "Uncompensated Overtime Policy" should be inserted. Can the Government clarify its answer? For example, should the Uncompensated Overtime Policy be provided by the Prime as part of its response to L.10(b)(Note 9)?

11. Answer to question #73: Answer 73 refers to itself and does not answer Question 73. If this refers to Answer 72 (to see L.9.6. of the RFP)--it is not addressed there as that section is only regarding past performance, and not on direct financial information submission for subcontractors. Can the Government clarify its answers to question #73?

10. Note 9 states that offerors shall provide “additional supporting budget documentation (as necessary), including profit/fee policy, etc. to substantiate all proposed costs.”

11. The answer should have referenced Amendment 4, page 13, question 56 which asked “How can subs send in their financials if they don’t want to share them with the prime?” The Government’s response was, and remains:

Subs “can send them directly to USAID. They must be clearly marked so that we can match them to the prime offeror and the must be received by the closing date and time. Or they can provide them to the prime offeror in sealed envelopes and the prime offeror can include them as

Questions & Answers Page 15

12. Answer to question #80: Answer 80 refers to itself and does not answer Question 80. If this refers to Answer 79 (to see various sections of the RFP)--it still does not address the question at all. Can the Government clarify its answers to question #80?

13. Answer to question #92 (p. 31) and RFP Amendment 9, G.1(b) (p. 39): The vendor question asked if local currency must always be handled by bonded personnel. The Government's answer to this question was "Please see Section G.1(b) on page 39 of the RFP." However, Answer 92 refers to the section from which the question originated, meaning that we sought clarification ON that section. Section G.1(b) simply states that "The costs of bonding personnel responsible for local currency are reimbursable under this contract" and specifically does not state if bonding is a requirement. It is not clear from section G.1(b) on page 39 of the RFP why the wording “The costs of bonding personnel responsible for local currency are reimbursable under this contract...” are included in this section on local currency payment--since nowhere else is bonding discussed. Therefore for the sake of clarity--we ask that you directly answer our question which was: “Can the Government confirm that local currency must always be handled by the Contractor's ‘bonded personnel’?” The answer provided does NOT confirm anything in any way. May the contractor not bond any personnel at all if they remain "fully responsible for the proper expenditure and control of local currency, if any, provided under this contract"?

part of their cost proposal.”

12. The offeror must only propose the two key personnel required in the RFP.

13. This information is not necessary for your proposal since ODCs for assignments are plug figures. G.1 also states that contractors shall follow Mission instructions.

Questions & Answers Page 16

14. Answer to question #93 (pp. 31-32) and RFP Amendment 9, H.4(a)(1) (p. 44): The vendor question asked if certification of payscale and wage levels is required in the offeror's proposal. The Government's answer to this question was "Please see H.4(1) on page 44." However, unfortunately, Section H.4(a)(1) does not state if such certification is a requirement of the offeror's proposal or if it will simply be required later during the performance of the contract. Can the Government clarify if certification of Section H.4(a)(1) is required in the offeror's proposal?

15. Answer to question #113: Answer 113, to the question of whether the Contractor can utilize subcontractors who are non-profit or charitable organizations, is not addressed by the referenced C.3.3 of the RFP which addresses only “local organizations and individuals” and further goes on to mention “regional centers and in-country institutions” – therefore implying target country entities. How does this address a US-based non-profit or charitable organization, for instance based in Washington DC as it is may not be thought of as a local target-country entity.

16. Answer to question #178 (p. 56): The vendor question asked for copies of the branding and marking template. The Government's answer to this question was "Proper link provided post award." Unfortunately, this would give the incumbent an advantage since they would presumably have access to the templates and the Government is requiring both a Branding Plan and a Marking Plan to be submitted with this proposal. If the link is not functional, can the

14. Per Amendment 9, page 99 section L.10 note 9 “Offerors shall provide additional supporting budget documentation (as necessary), including profit/fee policy, etc. to substantiate all proposed costs.”

15. The offeror may consider not for profits in proposing sub-contractors.

16. The correct link is:

http://transition.usaid.gov/branding/templates.html

Questions & Answers Page 17

Government simply upload copies of the two templates to FedBizOpps.gov?

17. Regarding Amendment 5, March 15: Answer to question

#113: Further to Answer 113, and the referenced section C.3.3 discusses working with (“in contract activities”) with such local institutions that have been or are currently partnered with USAID etc., and to include said specialists.

How does this reconcile with the very strict OCI interpretations that were issued recently on March 9, 2012 under this solicitation. By those rules, it would seem that we SHOULD NOT do what Section C.3.3 is advocating.

Further, if USAID waives the OCI for those local institutions, how is it possible and equitable to define what constitutes a “local institution” and what constitutes a “US institution” that may have work IN the target country funded by USAID, which could be previously thought to be have been conflicted out due to the March 9 posting.

18. Regarding Amendment 5, March 15: Answer to question

#113: Contextual to the above clarification – the major change in the OCI rules posted Amendment 9, constitutes a significant change in an envisioned approach predicated on team members that had been excluded due to the strict wording of the March 9 posting, and while it is commendable to have to policy of inclusion of “local institutions” per C.3.3 it seems that the definition unfairly excludes US institutions that also want to work on the contract, without being excluded from other health-related USAID work.

17. Under Section C.3.3, the choice of recruiting expertise from local organizations and individuals is at sole discretion of the Contractor. Section C.3.3 does not cause an OCI problem.

18. This is a statement and not a question.

Questions & Answers Page 18

19. Given the probable near-term adoption of a FAR provision requiring Contracting Officers to consult outside sources in their routine OCI analyses, which in the meantime will be increasing looked upon as a means of compliance and mitigation of agency contracting risks, has USAID prepared, planned and budgeted, due to its relaxing of the original OCI prevention rules, for the future utilization at frequent intervals of such outside resources for OCI analysis?

20. In reference to OCI mitigation, some recent findings by the

GAO, too numerous to list but easily identified on public records search show that firewalls within a company or team generally do not work to resolve “impaired objectivity” OCI. For instance, the "firewall" may state that the team may have to hand work over to a subcontractor as a mitigation. This leads to 2 questions based on the firewall approach:

a. How will the bid evaluation team measure the effectiveness of a number of mitigating "hand-offs" that are not explicitly detailed on a project-by-project basis PRIOR to the award of the bid?

b. How will the bid evaluation fairly, objectively, and transparently score the impact on the offeror’s technical approach?

21. In reference to the change in the OCI rules for this procurement, the questions are:

a. Why specifically was the strict, clear and transparent

OCI set of rules of this procurement changed?

b. Has USAID taken requests and complaints regarding

19. The revised FAR provision is not finalized and therefore, does not apply to this award.

20. Mitigation plans are only required if there is a potential

OCI, or the appearance of one. Mitigation Plans are to be submitted with cost proposal not the technical proposal and will not be scored. Mitigation plans will be reviewed based on the specific facts at issue, and will be approved if the mitigation plan can demonstrate that the potential and/or appearance of an OCI can be avoided or otherwise resolved. If USAID determines that the potential OCI or appearance of an OCI cannot be avoided or resolved than the offeror’s mitigation plan will be disapproved and the proposal will be ineligible for award.

21. Such revisions were in response to a bid protest.

USAID revised the RFP in the best interests of the procurement.

Questions & Answers Page 19 the prior OCI rules from potential bidders wherein the work being proposed by those bidders was precisely impermissible, and potentially unmitigatable, under those original OCI rules - and with its relaxation now permissible; and if so, what is the rationale for giving said previously excluded bidders more flexibility, at the cost of introducing more possible conflicts of interest and post-award protests, and invariably delaying the implementation of the award?

22. In reference to analyzing the acquisition for potential impaired objectivity OCIs, recent findings by the GAO show that the agency and contractor cannot limit their analysis solely to acquisition conflicts. Conflicts may exist in situations where a firm will be influencing policy, or testing and evaluating products or systems, although no procurement is imminent or anticipated. In these aforementioned conditions the GAO has sustained such protests recently. The question is: Given the broad scope of the responsibility of the contractor, literally the global reach of its program designs and evaluations, which will by their nature influence general agency strategy and policy and affect balances of consideration in regional strategies and budgets, how can USAID clearly establish that no OCI will take place - or even have the appearance of possibly taking place - even with so-called "mitigation plans", if a contractor team has any companies or individuals that participate in any form or manner in any global health (or related USAID funded program, i.e. partial funding of CDC studies).

22. Potential OCIs will be reviewed by USAID based on the specific facts at issue.

Questions & Answers Page 20

23. Policies and procedures:

a. What are the established procedures and policies

USAID has in regards to evaluation of OCI mitigation plans.

b. May we see said procedures and policies?

c. If the OCI mitigation plan evaluation procedures and policies are not previously established and/or published and/or available, and left to the discretion of the evaluating committee, then what are the qualifications, specific training, and make-up of the committee establishing their experience and knowledge in evaluating OCI mitigation plans?

24. Under FAR Subpart 3.1 – Safeguards, 3.101 – Standards of conduct, 3.101-1 – General, it states: “Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none.

Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships. While many Federal laws and regulations place restrictions on the actions of Government personnel, their official conduct must, in addition, be such that they would have no reluctance to make a full public disclosure of their actions. (Emphasis added by questioner). Question: Given the global nature of the contract envisioned, and the strategic impact of program designs and their evaluations (see USAID Evaluation Policy:

23. Potential OCIs will be reviewed by USAID based on

24. Potential OCIs will be reviewed by USAID based on

Questions & Answers Page 21

RELEVANT), what is the evaluative measure of an OCI mitigation plan that will avoid an OCI, or the appearance of an OCI; in other words, what are the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of the mitigation plan that specifically address the appearance of conflict of interest. (It is the opinion of the questioner that NO mitigation plan can address the appearance of conflict due to the global nature of the contact, and the GAO generally has not recently accepted last-minute “firewalls”, artificial firewalls, sub-contracted firewalls within a company or team of companies, and that in the interests of transparency and clarity – the original OCI rules should be re-established in this RFP).

25. In reference to “OCI Waivers”, wherein USAID is waiving its original OCI rules in favor of relaxed OCI rules, and the seeming acceptance of the possible global impact of conflicts in evaluations not in coherence with its latest evaluation policy, the GAO has used, as one measure of the acceptability of waivers, the rationale that the waiver (or partial relaxation) of OCI rules is needed to avoid limiting competition. Questions are:

a. How has it been established that the stricter/original OCI rules limited competition and what was the formal measure of the establishment?

b. Given the limitation of the bid to 8(a) companies, has it been in fact established that the original OCI rules have prevented a sizable number of 8(a) companies from actually bidding on this contract, and if it has been established, how so?

c. What specific measurable data informed the

25. USAID revised the RFP in the best interests of the procurement. The requirements against a potential or perceived OCI have not been waived or relaxed. USAID will only award where any potential or perceived OCI can be mitigated.

Questions & Answers Page 22

USAID decision to waive/relax its original OCI rules?

d. How specifically do the waiving/relaxing of the original OCI rules, with its correspondent potential risks for undetected and/or in-practice post-award unmitigated OCI, and the additional risk of multiple post-award protests and subsequent delays in implementation, serve “the best interests of the government” (one of the measures of GAO acceptance of waiver rationale)?

26. Contemplated FAR rules (i.e. proposed FAR § 3.1204-3) and recent OCI practices coming into precedence endorse three specific forms of mitigation: i. subcontracting the portion of work from which the conflict arises (if possible), ii. soliciting advice from multiple sources so as to limit the impact of impaired objectivity, and, iii.

working with the contracting agency to establish internal mitigation measures. The questions are:

a. If an OCI mitigation plan were to use the method of subcontracting the portion of work from which the conflict arises, how will USAID evaluate the impact of the subcontract on the technical approach? In order to be accurately defined and be considered, will the “mitigating subcontracts” detail each possible area of conflict in the entire scope of work, with the accompanying personnel and budgets attached to each mitigating subcontract?

b. If an OCI mitigation plan were to use the method

26. The revised FAR provision is not finalized and therefore, does not apply to this award. Potential OCIs will be reviewed by USAID based on the specific facts at issue. USAID will only award where any potential or perceived OCI can be mitigated.

Questions & Answers Page 23 of soliciting advice from multiple sources so as to limit the impact of impaired objectivity, has USAID made the appropriate budgetary and procedural allocations that will be needed to operate such a method? And how would due diligence be then performed upon those additional sources for their own intrinsically created OCI, as well as potential conflicts arising from relationships with the original offerer. Or if the Offeror is expected to plan and budget for the use of multiple sources itself, would it not be simpler to eliminate the OCI-causing element (i.e.

subcontractor with OCI) so as to eliminate the need for multiple evaluation sources?

c. If an OCI mitigation plan were to use the method of working with the contracting agency to establish internal mitigation measures, current industry guidance provides some standards to which the contractor would have to adhere, such as: Internal firewalls, Independent members of the board of directors, Board of director resolution restricting certain employees from participating in contract performance, Non-disclosure agreements, the hiring of a senior-level OCI compliance officer to supervise all mitigation efforts; has USAID in this case made any allowances for working with the contractor on such measures as part of an “internal mitigation” plan? And what set of the preceding measures will be considered sufficient? Will USAID bear the cost of these internal mitigation measures?

Questions & Answers Page 24

Will USAID establish a special OCI mitigation officer as a counterpart to the contractor compliance officer in monitoring and auditing OCI compliance?

d. If an OCI mitigation plan does NOT use any of the 3 preceding methods (which are the 3 main methods in practice in industry), how will the USAID contracting officers assess a relatively new and/or untested method in a manner that is consistent with all Federal rules and regulations as well as the published USAID evaluation policy?

27. In the USAID Evaluation Policy, published 03/26/2012, on page 14, in the RELEVANT section, it states:

“Evaluations will address the most important and relevant questions about project performance. In general the importance and relevance will be achieved by explicitly linking evaluation questions to specific future decisions to be made by USAID leadership, partner governments and/or other stakeholders. Those decisions frequently will be related to how resources should be allocated across and within sectors and thematic areas and/or how implementation should be modified to improve effectiveness. (Emphasis added by questioner).

Question:

Given the global nature of this contract, how can “mitigated” OCI participants, who are active in any segment of the global health program, or USAID, clearly and transparently demonstrate the lack of connectivity no

27. Potential OCIs will be reviewed by USAID based on the specific facts at issue. USAID will only award where any potential or perceived OCI can be mitigated. Note that OCI determinations for future contracts will be made by the Contracting Officer for that future contracts.

Questions & Answers Page 25 matter how remote between a particular evaluation and the allocation of resources, modification of implementation, and other future decisions as mentioned above, especially since it is the very policy of USAID to link evaluation questions to decisions and resource allocations?

28. RFP Amendment 9, H.13 (p. 48) and H.12(d) (p. 48).

Section H.13 states, "Please review USAID Contract Information Bulletin (CIB) 99-17 http://www.usaid.gov/business/business_opportunities/ci b/pdf/cib9917.pdf for USAID policies and requirements regarding OCIs." It should be noted that Section H.12(d) is not consistent with CIB 99-17. As just one example (of several), Section II of CIB 99-17 (p. 5) states, "If a subcontractor performs substantive evaluation work, the subcontractor shall be subject to the same restrictions as the prime contractor." However, Section H.12(d) of the RFP states, "Note that H.14 and H.15 apply to potential conflicts under future contracts, cooperative agreements or grants, and prohibit the Contractor and any of its subcontractors from obtaining future implementation services resulting from the design or evaluation services under this contract." CIB 99-17 restricts a subcontractor only if they have substantive evaluation work, while Section H.12(d) restricts any subcontractor regardless of what work they may have done. Is it the Government's intention to have Section H.12(d) be different from CIB 99-17, or did the Government intend that Section H.12(d) be made consistent with CIB 99-17?

28. CIB 99-17 allows the CO to add restriction if the CO determines that additional safeguards are necessary.

Questions & Answers Page 26

29. March 9 OCI Questions and Answers, Answer to question #23 (p. 6) and H.13 (p. 48): In response to the vendor question that CIB 99-17 does not impose a COI in the case of a subcontractor not doing substantive work, the Government responds that "any portion of evaluation work is subject to the same restriction as the prime." This is in clear conflict with CIB 99-17 which the RFP cites in Section H.13 as an authority to which the offeror should refer. Can the Government please clarify if the offeror is supposed to follow the guidance in CIB 99-17 or not?

30. H.12(a) says that the prime Contractor shall not hold any current USAID health-related contracts, cooperative agreements or grants. Would this apply to a company which currently holds an active USAID health-related contract or task order, but USAID is no longer paying the contractor for services at the time of submission of the GH Tech proposal? (For example, in a case where the health-related contract or task order were not technically expired, but happened to be out of money or where the scope of work was already completed.)

31. RFP Amendment 9, C.4.2 (p. 16) and C.4.3 (p. 16):

Section C.4.2 states, "It is anticipated that this contract will be requested to provide services for a diverse cross-section of USAID health-related activities ... cross-cutting health issues such as gender..." Thus gender is identified as a cross-cutting health issue. Section C.4.3(B) goes on to state, "The program/project/activity is funded in full or in part by the U.S. Congress’ appropriations designated or earmarked for health-related

29. Evaluations of programs are by definition substantive work and therefore subcontractors performing evaluations will be subject to the same restrictions as the prime. Note that H.12(c) provides an exception for subcontractors providing ancillary services.

30. Yes.

31. For purposes of this solicitation, the definition given in Section C.4.3 provides the sole criteria for identifying health-related programs. No other part of the RFP provides a definition of health-related programs.

Questions & Answers Page 27 purposes..." Can the Government please confirm that in keeping with Section C.4.2 identification of gender as a cross-cutting health issue, that the "health-related purposes" called out in Section C.4.3 does include purposes related to gender. (USAID has projects which are gender-related and identified as such in the associated Congressional appropriation or earmark, but which were not also designated as "health".)

32. RFP Amendment 9, C.4.3(A) (p. 16): The executive agency for the President's…