Q A_-_SOL-OAA-12-000128_RFP_Amendment.pdf

Single Award IDIQ for Supply Chain TA and Procurement (GREEN BOX) Bidder Questions, Answers & RFP Amendments

02/07/14

1. Could USAID please clarify type of task order to be awarded for the three task orders being competed as part of the RFP procurement? Section B.2 of each task order solicitation states that the task orders will be CPFF term type contracts, but Section B.2 also states that the contractor is required to provide the deliverables or outputs stated in Section C, which would seem to be more consistent with a CPFF completion type contract. Additionally, Section F does not contain a requirement for delivery of a specified amount of level of effort, as would normally be present under a term type contract.

The contract type is CPFF Term. The LOE and instructions have been updated in Sections B.2 and L.7.3.1 (e) and (f).

2. Are there any regulations, standards or similar items to which the USAID will require the bidder's operations, systems and facilities adhere, such as with respect to data security or system criticality (e.g. NIST 800-53R4, FISMA, FedRAMP)? If so, please provide a listing.

Please see USAID ADS Chapter 575 on Information Security. While the USAID CIO’s office doesn’t have to approve of an IPs system, you should use the same guidance to ensure security of USAID data.

3. Per Section I.1, page 85, so that USAID can receive the benefits of contractor’s or subcontractor’s pre-existing intellectual property and industry best standards, would USAID please consider adding FAR 52.227-14 ALT I, ALT II, and ALT III to the list of incorporated clauses in Section I.1?

The government would entertain adding Alt. I, II, or III of FAR 52.227-14 to the final contract to apply to certain limited rights or restricted rights data, provided that the contractor can support that the government will retain adequate license rights for government purposes. Contractor should be clear in its proposal what data is being proposed with limited or restricted rights.

4. We note that pharmaceutical commodities and contraceptive items are defined by AIDAR 752.225- 70(c)(3) as restricted goods requiring a specific Contracting Officer approval. Given the volume of procurement that will be conducted under this IDIQ, would USAID consider providing a blanket approval for such purchases in the IDIQ contract to promote efficiency?

USAID does not give blanket approvals for pharmaceuticals. ADS 312 sets out the requirements for approval of pharmaceutical and additional information on the ADS 312 approval is in ADS 312 Additional Help Document at http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-health/hiv-and-aids/technical-areas/supply-chain-hiv-and-aids-essential-health.

Under the current DELIVER and SCMS contracts USAID has provided advance approval under ADS 312 for various categorizes of pharmaceutical covering almost all of the pharmaceuticals procured under the contracts. Technical offices work with the contractors in identifying and approving manufacturers, wholesalers, etc. This has been an efficient process and we expect to continue it for this contract.

5. We would appreciate clarification related to the RFP requirements about the content, placement, and evaluation of small business subcontracting information. Please clarify whether we are correct in our understanding of the following:

• The technical proposal should provide information about our past performance using small businesses, per Section L.6(e)(v), page 130, and will be evaluated according to the criteria set out http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1864/ADS312AdditionalHelpDocument.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1864/ADS312AdditionalHelpDocument.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-health/hiv-and-aids/technical-areas/supply-chain-hiv-and-aids-essential-health http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-health/hiv-and-aids/technical-areas/supply-chain-hiv-and-aids-essential-health in Section M.2.2(e)(6), page 145.

Correct.

• The materials noted in Section L.6(e)(v), page 130 are to be submitted as a separate appendix to the technical proposal and are not included in the 5-page past performance narrative and past performance report short forms to be submitted electronically by February 19, 2014.

The materials in Section L.6(e)(v) are to be submitted with all other Past Performance information, as described in Section L.5 and the NOTE on Past Performance. This narrative is not included in the 5 page past performance narrative as described in Section L.6(e)(i – iv). Please limit the narrative described in Section L.6(e)(v) to 5 additional pages, for a total not to exceed 10 pages for past performance.

Information may not be combined for a total of 10 pages, i.e. L.6(e)(i – iv) is limited to 5 pages and L.6(e)(v) is limited to 5 pages. All past performance documents are due on February 19, 2014.

• Section L.6.(e)(v), page 130, requests the offeror to “provide a list of the recent contracts within the past five years, for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” As most of our contracts are not in the eSRS, we respectfully request the option of submitting 10 relevant SF 294s for contracts that are not in the eSRS for USAID’s review. Alternatively, may we do one of the following:

o Provide a list of all submitted SF 294s for the last three years, indicating which contracts are in the eSRS and which are not, or o Provide copies on CD-ROMs(s) of our SF 294s for all contracts that are not in the eSRS

(please note that three years’ worth will be a very large file — more than 500 pages).

If offerors have not submitted subcontracting reports to eSRS then you must provide recent and similar subcontracting reports. Please indicate which contracts are in eSRS and which ones are not, and provide the appropriate documentation for the reports that are not included. If providing SF-294’s, please provide only the final report per individual contract, if possible. The RFP is amended to reflect that only recent and similar subcontracting reports should be submitted.

• Our small business subcontracting plan for the IDIQ, per Section L.6(f), page 130, and Section L.7(6), page 138) will be evaluated according to the criteria set out in Section M.2.2(f), page 145.

The technical evaluation of the Subcontracting Plan (narrative), Section L.6(f), will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.2.2(f). The cost evaluation of the Subcontracting Plan (Attachment J.6), Section L.7(6), will be evaluated in accordance with the full cost proposal, described in Section M.3. Note that these are two separate requirements.

• Our small business subcontracting plan should be included only in the cost volume.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan for the cost proposal (Attachment J.6) is not to be included with the technical proposal. Attachment J.6 must be included as part of the cost proposal. The narrative Subcontracting Plan information should be provided in the technical proposal and must include the elements listed in Section L.6(f). Subcontracting plan information in the technical proposal must not include cost information and the RFP Section M.2.2(f) no longer states “dollars” and now indicates “percentages” should be included in this requirement.

6. Both the technical proposal instructions (Section L.6.(f), p.130) and the cost proposal instructions (Section L.7.6, p.138) require a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The technical proposal instructions state that the Plan should be appended to the technical proposal (p.122); however, the plan will contain cost information. Should the plan be summarized in the body of the technical proposal in accordance with the technical proposal instructions (with no cost information included), and appended in its entirety only to the cost proposal?

See the answer to question 5.

7. Can USAID please clarify what price will constitute the evaluated IDIQ price for purposes of the price/technical tradeoff described in Section M.5(b), page 147? The RFP appears to state in Section M.3, page 146, that the IDIQ will be evaluated only at the unit pricing level, i.e., proposed daily rates, indirect rates, and fixed fee rates. However, this would conflict with prior GAO rulings that IDIQ type contract proposals must be compared based on the actual cost to the government of the offerors’ competing proposals and not based on individual labor rates or other unit pricing. Additionally, as USAID itself has noted in the agency’s excellent Best Practices Guide for Indirect Costing, indirect rate comparisons at the rate level do not necessarily provide meaningful information about an offeror’s overall cost to the government.

The IDIQ will be awarded based on the evaluation of the three Task Order proposals and IDIQ ceiling daily rates, and ceilings on indirect rates and fixed fee. The three task order proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M and will determine the total cost proposed to the government, and thereby will represent the basis for award of the IDIQ and subsequently, the individual Task Orders.

8. To ensure that USAID will be in a position to secure the best possible value for the taxpayer, we respectfully request that USAID amend the solicitation to state that the price portion of the IDIQ price-technical tradeoff will be evaluated based on the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for Task Orders 1, 2, and 3, or on some similar basis that would yield an estimated overall price. USAID may wish to specify in what format offerors should present this information (e.g., in the summary format provided in RFP Section L.7.3.1(b), page 134, or in some alternate format if preferred by USAID).

See the answer to question 7. In addition the solicitation is amended to better explain in Section M.3 how the price-technical tradeoff analysis will occur.

9. Could USAID please clarify whether the authorized geographic code for this IDIQ is 937 or 935?

Section H.8. page 74, indicates it is 935; however, the cover letter states that “the authorized geographic code for the prime contractor of this procurement is 937. However, the prime contractor will have an authorized geographic code of 935 for the sub-procurement of commodities and services in support of this award.” If the cover letter language is correct, could USAID please clarify what types of arrangements would be subject to Code 937? It is unclear to us what could be procured that would not constitute “commodities and services in support of” the award.

Both are correct. The geographic code which applies to the prime contractor is 937; the prime contractor must be from the United States, a cooperating country, or a developing country, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source. However, USAID has obtained a waiver to allow the prime contractor to use a 935 geographic code (any area or country, including the recipient country, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source) for all of its procurement of goods and services under the contract.

10. On page 85, Section I.1, and page 27, Section C. 2. 4. 6, so that USAID can receive the benefits of contractor’s or subcontractor’s pre-existing intellectual property and industry best-standards, would USAID please consider adding FAR 52.227-14 ALT I, ALT II, and ALT III to the list of incorporated clauses in Section I.1

See response to question 3.

11. On page 114, Section L, 52.216-1 is incorrectly titled. Did the Government intend this clause to be

“52.216-1 Type of Contract”?

Yes. The solicitation has been revised to show the proper name. The RFP was amended to include the full text.

12. Could USAID please confirm that clauses incorporated by reference in Section I.1, which the FAR prescribes exclusively for fixed-price contracts, will be applicable only to FFP task orders, and that those prescribed exclusively for cost-reimbursable contracts are applicable only to CPFF task orders?

It is confirmed that all clauses listed in Section I.1 which are exclusively for fixed-price contracts will be applicable only to FFP task order and that all clauses prescribed exclusively for cost-reimbursable contracts are applicable only to CPFF task orders.

13. If an offeror or subcontractor’s government sales exceed $25 million, but the offeror or subcontractor’s government customers have not to date elected to review its purchasing system, how should such organizations respond to the certification in RFP Section K.11, page 113? The RFP does not appear to consider this as a possibility.

This certification has been deleted.

14. If an organization’s government customers have not to date elected to review their property administration system, how should such organizations respond to Section K.12, page 113, since the RFP presents only an “affirm” option?

This certification has been deleted.

15. The RFP calls for the application of Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates to be applied to all cost-type task orders, but exempts fixed-price task orders (Section B.7.(a), p.7). Are fixed-price and time and materials subcontracts (including commercial rate and MOBIS-based subcontracts) also exempt from this requirement.

Fixed price subcontracts are exempt, however all other subcontracts, including time and materials subcontracts, are not exempt and are required to abide by the ceiling rates.

16. Will USAID clarify the name of Task Order number 3? There are references throughout the solicitation for Task Order 3 as Family Planning (cover and pg 118), and Commodity Security and Logistics (pg 102 and TO 3). Please clarify which is correct.

See RFP revisions and the correct name is Population and Reproductive Health (PRH).

17. Can a USAID approved wholesaler participate in a consortium for the Global Health Supply

Chain Program?

Yes, an approved wholesaler can participate in a consortium. The prime contractor must eliminate conflicts of interest within their consortia. For instance, if the USAID approved wholesaler participates in the consortium as a buyer or in a role that provides them unfair access to competitive information, then it would be a conflict of interest to also act as a supplier.

18. Can a USAID approved wholesaler be a procurement agent in a consortium bidding on the Global

Health Supply Chain Program while at the same time supplying to that same consortium?

No. See the answer to question 17.

19. What, if anything, will be the impact of the new Global Health supply chain program on the current

USAID pre-approved wholesalers?

The list of approved wholesalers will be periodically updated over the life of the GH Supply Chain Program.

20. Could you provide details / breakdown of listed product categories within each task order (e.g. : what is the expected disbursement of budget amongst ARV, OI, test etc.)?

While we cannot provide with certainty the estimated breakdown of products to be procured in the future, USAID will provide the following breakdown of historical expenditures and product types. Note this corresponds with Attachment J.9:

Procurements associated with shipments for FY11 and FY12

HIV Products

% of budge t PMI Products

% of budge t FP Products

% of budge t

ARV -

Antiretrovirals 62.8%

Long-Lasting Insecticide Treated Net 54.2%

Injectable Contraceptive 28.2%

LAB - Lab Equipment & Medical Supplies 18.4%

Coartem 22.4%

Male Condom 22.6%

HRDT - HIV Rapid Diagnostic Tests*to be procured by the

HIV RTK IDIQ 9.0%

Rapid Diagnostic Test Kit

9.0%

Contraceptive Implant

18.1% DRUG - Non ARV drugs 4.0% ALu Generic 5.8%

Oral Contraceptive 17.4%

MC - Male Circumcision Kits 2.9%

AS/AQ FDC

5.5%

Female Condom 6.0%

FP - Food Products 1.9% Malaria Pharmaceuticals 1.9%

Medical Equipment 4.1%

ORDT - Other Rapid Diagnostic Tests 0.3%

Malaria Misc.

Commodities 1.2%

TB

Pharmaceuticals 1.4%

OTH - Other Commodities 0.2%

Intrauterine Device 0.87%

ACT - ACT

Malaria 0.07%

Essential Medicines PH 0.55%

MRDT - Malaria RDTs 0.02% Lubricant 0.20%

Nutritional Therapeutic Supplement 0.19%

IT Equipment 0.19% Standard Days 0.12% 100% 100% 100%

21. Could you provide estimated number of orders and shipments per task order?

For the purposes of this proposal, offerors should assume the commodities listed in Attachment J.8 will be procured in similar quantities going forward; however, exact volumes to be procured each year of the contract are not known at this time. Similarly, order frequency and shipment frequency are not known with certainty; offerors should assume future orders and shipment volume by task order will be similar to that found in Attachment J.9.

22. RFP Section C.1.2, page 15, advises offerors to “refer to project websites listed above or refer to

USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC), which has been updated with periodic reports from projects listed above.” While these websites have been updated with new resources, the most recent periodic reports do not appear to be available on these websites. Can USAID provide the following the following documents?

• USAID/DELIVER Annual Report October 2012 to September 2013

• SCMS Annual Report October 2012 to September 2013

See reports in new ATTACHMENT J.19 DELIVER & SCMS PROJECTS' ANNUAL REPORTS

23. The RFP emphasizes the importance of the transition between the current projects to the projects that will comprise the USAID Global Supply Chain Program. To develop and determine a comprehensive and effective transition plan, it is critical to understand the plans of the current programs. Can USAID provide the October 2013 to September 2014 work plans for SCMS and

DELIVER?

Workplans will not be shared. However, useful information can be found in the J.19 and J.20. The RFP has been revised to now focus on offeror’s “Transition Approach” rather than “Transition Plan”. In addition, see the new transition assumptions in Section L.6 (c)(1)(iv).

24. Section C.2.1.9, page 21, requires the selected contractor to be responsible for defining, measuring, and tracking key performance indicators (KPIs). Can USAID share the M&E plan and/or the complete KPIs currently used to measure performance of the SCMS and DELIVER programs?

See new Attachment J.20 for the current list of KPIs for SCMS. DELIVER KPIs can be found in

ATTACHMENT J.19 DELIVER & SCMS PROJECTS' ANNUAL REPORTS.

25. Section C.2.2.2, page 22, states the contractor must ensure that there are no discrepancies between the physical inventory and the inventory reported in the MIS, and that the contractor must have insurance to cover loss, theft and damage. What are the current annual loss/insurance claim values on SCMS and DELIVER?

Product loss for FY2011-FY2012 shipments is listed in the Product Loss tab in Attachment J.9.

26. Section C.3, page 29, states that “the contractor should use, wherever feasible, in-country supply chain systems and organizations, whether public, private, or non-profit, rather than establishing and operating its own supply chain.” However, in Section C.2.2.4, page 24, the RFP states, “The contractor must be capable of distributing products from the central level down to the ‘last mile’ as defined at the TO level.” Could USAID elaborate on the contractor’s role in providing IT systems to deliver health commodities to the final point of consumption?

As is stated in the RFP, USAID is “committed to strengthening in-country supply chain systems.” A USAID Mission may request the contractor to assume responsibility on a temporary basis for the distribution of products as far as to the “last mile.” This may include the use of contractor-provided IT systems for product management, depending on local requirements.

27. Section C.3.3, Capacity Building, page 35, emphasizes “transfer of skills, knowledge and technology.” Can USAID please elaborate on how this section of the scope of work differs from the technical assistance articulated in Section C.3.2, In-Country Logistics, page 30, and Section C.3.4, Enabling Environments, page 35 — most notably, Section C.3.4.2, Human Resources, page 36?

Sections C.3.1-C3.4 are closely interrelated. Capacity-building in particular is envisioned by USAID as a key underpinning to what must be achieved for sustainable solutions and country ownership for strategic planning, in-country logistics, and enabling environments. The sections referenced in the question are mutually reinforcing on this basic point. Capacity building is expected to be a core element of technical assistance for systems strengthening, and is essential to meeting the human resource requirements of supply chain systems.

28. Section C.4.6,Transition from DELIVER and SCMS to New IDIQ, page 40, and Section C.4.7, Gender Considerations, page 41, appear to apply across objectives rather than being specific to Section C.4, Objective 3: Global Collaboration, page 37. Can USAID clarify whether program transition and gender considerations are specific to global collaboration or do they apply to all three objectives?

Program transition and gender considerations apply to all three objectives. This been clarified in the RFP as a Cross-Cutting Requirement for all objectives and is now Section C.5.

29. Per Section C.4.5, page 40, the contractor is expected to have a knowledge management and communications strategy. According to Section F.5.2(7), page 55, this strategy is to be submitted with the award. Please clarify whether offerors should submit a knowledge management and communications strategy as part of their proposals. If so, please add this appendix to the appendices listed in Section L.5, page 122, and specify page limitations, if any.

The contractor will be required to submit a knowledge management and communications strategy for each TO to the USAID TOCOR within 90 calendar days of award. This has been clarified under Section F.5.2(7) and specified in the Table “Task Order Deliverables and Reporting Schedule.” A related item, which must be submitted with proposals, is the Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Implementation Plan (MIP). This has also been clarified in Section L.

30. The HIV/AIDS task order, Attachment J.1, Section C.2.2.2, page 15, states that “contractor may use strategies, such as operating Regional Distribution Centers, to lower the cost through bulk transportation to regional points while also reducing the lead-times on orders.” Potential offerors have been provided FY2011 and FY2012 warehouse operating costs (historical procurement transaction table — warehouse master). However, this data does not indicate whether this is exclusively the cost of the space or whether it includes all associated costs, such as handling of shipments in/out, insurance, etc. To evaluate best value, it is important to understand space utilization over the duration of the current projects. Can USAID share reports and/or data that show space utilization in pallet positions or square feet per day/month, per warehouse location, and per commodity in FY2010, FY 2011, and FY2012?

Regular warehousing costs consist of a fixed monthly storage fee per pallet position, fixed rates for pick and pack, and fixed rates per order for export documentation. Additional charges may also occur for carton replacement and repackaging (not due to warehouse handling). The USG does not have data on pallet positions or a readily available estimate on pallet positions (or other space estimate) by SKU over time. The SCMS is charged a flat rate per pallet of $185 per month or part thereof for storage including charges per order picked. SCMS is charged the same flat rate across all its RDC's. SCMS currently averages the following pallet utilization in its RDCs: South Africa averages 1,500 pallets, Kenya averages 725 pallets, and Ghana averages 750 pallets.

31. Offerors are required to demonstrate capability and approach to distributing products from the central level down to the “last mile.” To determine appropriate in-country distribution approaches and resources, it is important to understand the current scope of in-country distribution. Attachment J.9, Historical Procurement Transaction, Shipment History sheet, provides 110 destinations in Column V that are mainly capital city or major city locations. However, data on last mile distribution is not provided. Can USAID provide data on 2012 deliveries by secondary and final delivery point? Can USAID provide data from 2011 and 2012 by country, commodity, and associated volume that current contractors were required to distribute to the facility level?

A complete understanding of the number of final points of delivery, locations, volume, commodity type and other data is likely to change significantly before an award is made and would not influence the type of information USAID would like to see in proposals. USAID would review country-specific distribution activities after an award is made at the country level through the workplan proposal and evaluation process.

The following changes regarding the level of detail expected, in relation to in-country logistics have been made to the RFP in Section L.6(b)(3).

32. In Attachment J.9, Historical Procurement Transaction, weights and measurements (cu.m/cu.ft) are given for only around half of the 15,000+ shipments, and the delivery cost is given only 20 percent of the time, even where shipments are consolidated. How does USAID currently track freight expenditure and what are the KPIs for freight expenditures?

USAID tracks freight costs through financial accounting, and freight cost and its components are tracked for each shipment. There are processes currently in place to manage freight expenditures, and these processes differ for SCMS, DELIVER TO5, and DELIVER TO7. There are not currently established KPIs for freight expenditure management; however, the RFP will be amended to include measures that track performance and cost. See amended RFP language in Section L.6(c)(3)(i).

33. As USAID is requiring the offeror to support DELIVER and SCMS legacy software applications, can USAID provide system requirements, database schemas, data dictionaries, design documents, and user manuals for these systems? What does USAID envision as the role and responsibilities of the current supplier to transition legacy systems in the event of an award to a new supplier?

When we say support we mean you should be able to answer basic support questions or provide basic database administration for countries that use a legacy application like Pipeline or Supply Chain Manager.

Eventually, as with all systems, if the tools need to be modified or new more mature tools are required, requirements should be documented and system decision can be made on a case by case basis.

Transition between projects will consist of the incumbent partner providing all available documentation and change/bug requests. In addition the information system teams can meet to do a demonstration and discuss the typical support provided historically.

34. Section L.6(a)(2)(ii), page 125, states that “the offeror must describe how its order fulfillment process is flexible enough to accommodate emergency orders.” To avoid confusion, would USAID please define the criteria for determination of an emergency order?

For this proposal, an emergency order could be a response to an actual customer stockout, a response to low customer stock, or a request for shorter-than-normal lead time.

35. Per Section D.2(b), page 42, the contractor must develop a branding implementation plan (BIP) and marking plan (MP) for the IDIQ. Please clarify whether offerors should submit this plan as part of their proposals. If so, please add this appendix to the appendices listed in RFP Section L.5, page122, and specify page limitations, if any.

Yes, offerors must submit Branding Implementation Plans (BIP) and Marking Plans (MP) for each Task Order with their proposals. See amended RFP Section L.5. There are no page limitations for the BIP and MP. USAID’s Branding Strategy for the Global Health Supply Chain Program is being included as attachment J.21.

36. Per Section D.2(c), page 43, each RFTOP will request a program-specific BIP/MP. Given that the RFP includes three task orders, please clarify whether offerors should submit a program-specific BIP/MP for any or all of the three task orders. If so, please add these materials to the appendices listed in RFP Section L.5, page122, and specify page limitations, if any.

See answer for question #35.

37. Per Section F.5.1(1)(b)(iii), page 49, inventory management KPIs include a requirement to show performance and cost by product type before and after network optimization every two years. Do the current contracts contain a similar network optimization and reporting requirement? If so, what are the associated performance levels and costs?

Network optimization is not currently a requirement of SCMS or DELIVER, and inventory requirements are varied across warehoused commodity types. The USG is open to inventory strategies (to include quantities, policies, locations and fulfillment business rules) that best balance cost and service level for customers.

38. Please clarify which reference is correct for the specific title for the IDIQ key personnel position for country programs. Section F.8(3)b, page 61, states Country Programs Manager, while Section F.8(4), page 62, states Country Programs Director.

Amended Section F.8 of the RFP to read: “Country Programs Manager”

39. Please clarify which reference is correct for the specific title for the task order key personnel procurement manager position. Section F.8(3)c, page 61, says Procurement and Logistics Manager, while Section F.8(4), page 63, states Procurement Manager.

Amended Section F.8 of the RFP to read: “Procurement and Logistics Manager”

40. Section F.8(4), page 62, lists the qualifications for the IDIQ Director to include “at least ten years of experience as a Project Director for development projects that implement at a global scale,” and for the Country Programs Director to include “at least ten years of experience as a senior development expert directly supporting field programs at a global scale.” CVs for key personnel are limited to showcasing only the last ten years of the individual’s experience. The candidates who meet these criteria are a very small pool of individuals who are affiliated with specific organizations. Would USAID consider expanding the criteria to include a broader pool of qualified candidates?

The minimum qualifications for the IDIQ Director have been modified in the RFP. The Country Programs Manager qualifications remain the same. See amended language in Section F.8(4) of the RFP.

41. Section L.6(c)(2)(i), page 128, says that CVs for proposed key personnel must not extend beyond the past ten years, with the exception of education qualifications. We respectfully request that USAID allow inclusion of all relevant experience a proposed candidate may offer in the CV for evaluation purposes. We also request an increase in the page limitation to 5 pages for Project Director and TO Directors.

See amended RFP Section L.6(c)(2)(i), which provides: exceptions to the CV page limit for the Project Director and TO Directors (now 5 pages) and removes the 10 year history limitation.

42. Could USAID please confirm that a list of acronyms may be provided and will not count against the technical volume page limitation referenced in Section L.5, page 121?

The Acronyms page will not count against page limitation.

43. Could USAID please confirm that there is no page limitation on the Service Level Agreement referenced as one of the appendices in Section L.5, page 122?

There is no page limit on the Service Level Agreement. One draft must be submitted as an appendix.

44. Please confirm that the personnel skills/LOE matrix referenced in Section L.5, page 122, is a separate appendix that does not count against the 20-page limit for the staffing plan appendix.

There is no page limitation for the LOE Matrix. The RFP Section L.5 has been amended to state: One Matrix must be submitted for each task order showing: technical and/or functional areas; position; name, if available; employer’s name, LOE; total LOE per unit; and grand total LOE, both in hours and FTEs.

The Matrix should also show time split among Task Orders by percentage.

45. In Section L.6, page 123, USAID provides the order of sections. However, in Section M.2.1, page 141, USAID provides a different order of sections in order of their relative importance and their corresponding evaluation factors. Could USAID please confirm that the Global Collaboration section should precede the Management Section in the technical volume, but that the Management Section carries more importance than the Global Collaboration section?

USAID confirms that Section L provides the order the sections should go in proposals and Section M provides the relative importance of the sections for evaluation purposes; and the two are different.

46. Per RFP Section L.6.(a)(4)(i), page 126, “the offeror may submit dashboards, alerts, reports, and other specific representations of information system capabilities as an attachment to the proposal in the appendix.” Could USAID please confirm that “Representations of Information System Capabilities” is an approved appendix and exempt from the technical volume page limitation?

Yes, USAID confirms that Representations of Information System Capabilities is an appendix outside the page limitation.

47. Page 127 (2)(i) notes that “the leadership team for the IDIQ and its TOs is not limited to the key personnel listed in Section F and offerors are invited to propose additional key staff for the IDIQ or any TO.” Can USAID please indicate whether the number of key personnel is limited to five per IDIQ and each TO?

The IDIQ and TO are not limited to those key personnel identified in Section F.8. Offerors may propose additional key personnel (noting that the maximum number of key personnel may not exceed 5% of the total labor force of the contract per ADS 302.3.5.4(a)). Please note: the RFP has been amended in Section F.8 to indicate that the IDIQ Director can be filled by the same person acting as a TO Director and the Global Collaborations Manager can be filled by the same person acting as the IDIQ Director or IDIQ Country Programs Manager. This change results in a minimum of fourteen key personnel under this IDIQ (if an offeror choses to double-encumber the two positions).

48. Per Section C.2.4.1, page 26, the RFP requires that the contractor provide information system capabilities. However, none of the task order RFPs include provisions for the MIS. How should pricing for the MIS (services to implement, as well as IT products or managed services) be reflected in the pricing?

USAID expects the MIS services to be charged to each Task Order in the same manner that you charge each of your other clients for information system services. One of the foundational aspects of this RFP is that qualified vendors will have an existing ERP system and other clients that use it. Presumably as part of this 3PL/4PL model, vendors will already have a cost effective means for incorporating information system costs.

49. Section L.7.2(a), page 132, states that “the offeror must also propose a table of qualifications for mid-level and senior-level personnel, found in Section B.7(b).” Does this mean offerors may propose qualifications that differ from those in Section B.7(b)?

The RFP Section L.7.2(a) has been amended to read: “A brief synopsis of each labor category’s position description must be included and should meet the qualifications for mid-level and senior-level personnel, found in Section B.7(b).”

50. If the qualifications in Section B.7(b) are not open to negotiation, would USAID consider revising the number of years of experience qualifying for senior level CDRs downward to better align with the key personnel requirements in Section F.8? For example, we assume the IDIQ Director and Task Order Directors at minimum would be senior-level positions, but the minimum experience requirements in Section F.8 (which we believe appropriately reflect the market) would place these and all other key positions in mid-level CDR categories according to the matrix in Section B.7(b).

No, USAID would not consider revising the number of years of experience qualifying for senior level CDRs downward. IDIQ Director and Task Order Directors would be considered senior-level positions and the language and the requirements for these positions do not contradict the requirements in Section B.7(b). For the IDIQ Director position, for example, the RFP has been amended to now require “10 years of executive experience at the Project Director and/or Deputy Director for development projects that implement at a global scale”. It would be expected that prior to that experience, the candidate would have had additional experience at a lower level. Furthermore, by requiring only ten years of experience in international development, this allows offerors to propose candidates that may also have relevant private sector experience such as in procurement or logistics in order to meet the required years of work experience stated in Section B.7(b) which would be 12 years for a candidate with a Master’s degree.

51. Section B.7(b), page 10, includes a footnote that is not cross-referenced anywhere in the Education and Experience Requirements table included in the reference section on page 9. Please clarify to what part of the table the “***” footnotes applies.

The footnotes have been removed. See amended RFP Section B.7(b).

52. Section C.2.4.3 Data Standards of the RFP, page 27, requires the contractor to comply with data standards established by USAID. Please provide the applicable data standards.

USAID is working on updating data standards. At the moment, vendors should understand that once we finalize our data standards, we will not require that the IDIQ vendor change the ERP system, but ensure that the data requested is made available for our Business Intelligence tool to access. This will require a data mapping exercise on the part of both the vendor and the Business Intelligence implementing partner.

53. The RFP/IDIQ is largely silent on funding availability to support long term supply contracting mechanisms (eg to secure production slots over a period of time) and holding inventory. Can USAID please clarify how and the frequency with which such funding will be made available?

This is separate from the matter of funding for, say, specific programmatic commodity procurement. This could be especially critical for "emergency" supplies.

Subject to the availability of funding, the contractor will be able to place long term framework subcontracts with manufacturers and suppliers, as is currently done under the SCMS and DELIVER contracts. Also, see Section B.5. for the possibility of Letter of Credit. On occasion USAID will make funding available for “emergency procurements”.

54. Section L.7.3.1(i), page 136, asks for information regarding subcontracts. Please confirm that any narratives for subcontractors will not count against the 10-page limit on the budget narratives for the IDIQ and TOs.

The page limit is increased to 15 pages for the prime offeror and 10 pages for each subcontractor.

55. The CSL Task Order does not specify whether in-house quality assurance capabilities will be required under this task order; rather, it states that the requirements are as stated in the IDIQ (Section C.2.3.4, p.15). However, the IDIQ states that individual task orders may require the contractor to use the QA contractor or to propose and demonstrate the ability to independently establish a QA operation (Section C.2.3.4, p.25). Should bidders propose and support a QA approach for the CSL Task Order?

As stated in the RFP in Section C.2.3.4, "it is envisioned that in-house QA services will only be provided for TOs focusing on malaria." Offerors should not propose a QA approach for the PRH Task Order (formerly CSL). While not expected, the USG reserves the right to call on the contractor to establish such an operation in the future.

56. Section C.2.2.5 (p.24) of the IDIQ RFP specifies financial management and reporting requirements.

These would seem to apply to the entire scope of the contract, but they are included in section C.2.2, Logistics. Please clarify the intent of this section, and whether these requirements should be addressed as part of the logistics discussion or elsewhere in the proposal.

The intent was to have this language apply to all objectives; therefore, the language now falls under the “Cross Cutting Requirements for All Objectives” in Section C.5.3 of the RFP.

57. Section L.5 (p.121) specifies exclusions to the 100 page limit for the technical proposal. Are we correct that an acronym list and a guide to location in the proposal of text related to each evaluation factor would also be excluded from the page count?

Yes you are correct.

58. Section L.5 (p.122) of the RFP provides a list of required appendices, and then reads, in part: “All information from appendices shall be referenced in the technical proposal and summarized and included in the annex section, overly detailed or explicit annexes are not recommended.”

• Are we correct that “appendix” and “annex” are synonymous?

• Is submission of appended material other than the items explicitly called out in the RFP acceptable to USAID?

Yes appendix and annex are synonymous. Sections L.5, L.6 and L.7 have been revised. Appended material in excess of that required in the RFP will not be evaluated.

59. Regarding the appended items explicitly called out in the RFP, we are in some cases unclear on where such materials should be included. Please also clarify the following:

• Section L.5 (p.122) requires electronic submission of past performance short forms, and a 5-page narrative summary if needed, by February 19th, with resubmission in hard copy along with the full proposal. The technical proposal instructions state that this information should be included with the technical proposal, along with additional information on quality awards and certifications (outside the page limitation) (Section L.6.(e).(iv), p.129) and information on past use of small business subcontractors (Section L.6.(e).(v), p.130).

o Should the additional information on quality awards and certifications and information on past use of small business also be included in the February 19th submission?

o Should the quality award and certifications information be included in the past performance appendix of the technical proposal?

o Should the past use of small business subcontractors be appended, or included in the body of the technical proposal?

• Section L.6.(c).(2).(i) (pp.127-128) specifies written disclosure of any personnel conflicts of interest.

o Are statements required to affirm that there are no conflicts?

o Where should such statements, whether positive or negative, be included in the proposal submission?

Information on quality awards and certifications should be submitted in an appendix to the technical proposal and must be submitted on or before February 19. Conflict of Interest statements are required only if there is a personnel conflict of interest, and should be included in an appendix to the technical proposal.

60. Section L.6.(b).(3) (p.127) of the technical proposal instructions states in part that “Offerors must describe their technical approach to operating a fully functioning health commodity supply chain down to the health facility level.” The corresponding evaluation factor (Section M.2.2.(b).(3), p.143) reads “Sub-Factor 3: The merit of its innovative solutions and technical approach to operating a fully functioning health commodity supply chain down to the health facility level.” The systems strengthening requirements in Section C include a broad range of assistance in improving functioning and sustainability of national systems, and state that the Contractor may be required in specific instances to deliver to the health facility level or beyond on its own. Are we correct that this section of the proposal and the corresponding evaluation factor cover the entire range of systems strengthening assistance, and not only distribution systems operated by the Contractor?

Sub-factor 3 under Systems Strengthening does not apply to the broad range on systems strengthening interventions. Innovations are intentionally mentioned in the other Systems Strengthening sub-factors and the innovations elicited for Sub-factor 3 should be specific to in-country distribution innovations.

61. Are we correct that in Section M.2.2 (p.142), evaluation factor (a).(1).(iii) should read

“Procurement Strategy,” not “Sourcing Strategy”?

The RFP should have read “Sourcing Strategy” throughout. See amended RFP Section L.6(a)(1)(iii).

62. Section C.3.2.1 [of the HIV/AIDS Task Order] (p.18) reads “As stated in the IDIQ requirements and in addition:”. Nothing follows; should there be additional requirements specified in this section?

Nothing follows. This has been deleted in the RFP Section J.1.

63. Section C.2.1.9 [of the PRH Task Order] (p.15) contains a paragraph that does not appear to relate to the section title. Please clarify this requirement.

Section C.2.1.9 Performance Management and KPIs references the requirements as stated in the IDIQ.

64. In Section L.7.3.1 (d) (page 135) of the RFP, Allocable Costs, the Example provided is to “charge a flat rate to USAID Missions on commodities and/or field-based operations, to recover the cost from supporting these functions from headquarters.” A more plausible solution would be to allocate headquarters cost to Missions as a percentage of commodity or field-based operations received by that Mission. As allocable costs will be in direct reflection of the Mission receiving commodities or field-based support versus creating a commodity/field support pool which headquarters costs are then offset from, is this approach acceptable to USAID?

Thank you for the suggestion, USAID will take this into consideration in the future. However, for the purpose of submitting cost proposals, offerors must follow the instructions provided in the RFP.

65. Page 137 (I): Please clarify the definition of Other Directs Costs as Central Office Costs, as ODCs may encompass any item not included in other cost categories, not only central office costs.

Section L.7.3.1(l) has been revised to read Other Direct Costs (deleting the reference to “Central Office Costs”).

66. Could USAID please confirm, in accordance with 41 USC 254b(d)(2)(B), its implementing regulations at FAR 15.403-3(c)(2)(ii), and the FAR 52.244-6 clause incorporated in the RFP, that the requirement in RFP Section B.7(c), page 10, to disclose components of a burdened rate is not applicable to subcontractors who are providing services that constitute commercial items as the term is defined in FAR 2.101?

Section B.7(c) is not requiring the contractor to disclose the components of the subcontractor’s rate; it is asking for disclosure of the prime offeror’s indirect and profit that is added onto the rate they are charging for the subcontractor’s labor, if that total exceeds the prime’s unburdened ceiling daily rate. So even if the subcontractor is providing a commercial item, the requirements of Section B.7(c) still apply.

67. Can USAID please confirm that the 5 percent increase under Section H.5(a), page 71, is for individuals hired after the contract award, that their proposed starting salary on the contract may not exceed a 5 percent increase, and that the 3 percent increase under H.5.(d), page 72, applies to annual salary increases granted after twelve months of satisfactory service under the contract?

That is confirmed.

68. In Section H.5(d), page 72, the RFP states, “Annual salary increase (of any kind — cost of living, merit, promotion increase, or any other type) of not more than three (3) percent cumulatively may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract.” In Section H.4., AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract. As the two sections H.5(d) and H.4 seem to contradict each other, will USAID consider removing H.5(d) restrictions to be consistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation?

No, the requirements in H.5 are in addition to the requirements stated in H.4 and if the requirements stated in H.5 conflict with the contractor’s established policies, the requirements in H.5 will take precedence.

69. Please confirm that the following annexes are acceptable in the cost volume:

• Biographical data sheets for key personnel

• Prime and Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart, referenced in Section L.7.2(f), Confirmed.

70. For pricing purposes, should offerors assume that property listed in Attachment J.16 that has not yet reached the end of its useful life will be available to the successful GHSC contractor?

Yes, the successful bidder will have access to the property listed in Attachment J.16 that has remaining useful life.

71. Section L.7.3.1.(f) (p.136) of the RFP describes the field operations budget as “illustrative,” and provides assumptions on the number of offices and ceiling level of effort.

• Does USAID expect offerors to budget for a variety of illustrative office sizes and programs, or to budget a single office size and program approach per TO?

• Given the variability among countries and programs, will USAID provide a plug number for technical programmatic costs for the illustrative field offices?

• Further, for office operating costs (e.g., rent, local staff salaries, supplies, etc.) should offerors choose specific countries from the country list to use as the basis for estimation?

The following assumptions are to be used for the initial cost proposal only, and are subject to change.

After award, each Mission will work with the successful offeror to right-size the field office based on workplans and priorities.

USAID will not provide a plug number for…