SOL-OAA-16-000004_Amendment_1.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

/s/

X

1 12

SOL-OAA-16-000004: Amendment 01

Responses to questions received.

1. Regarding the LOE listed in the “Estimated Level of Effort (LOE) Chart” , will there be one or two TA providers per country? For example, in the “Training for Contractor Staff” it states that 2 staff per OU will be trained, and also in the “Activity Launch and Training” it states that 2 staff per OU will attend. However, in the “Technical Assistance Delivery” and

“Coordination for Data Collection and Data Quality Assurance” sections, it appears that time is calculated for only 1 staff per OU. For example, there are 4 weeks one-on-one TA per OU, for a total of 160 hours, for 15 OUs. If there were two staff per OU, that would be a total of 320 hours * 15 OUs, or 4800 hours, whereas the approximate LOE is listed as 2400, which seems to imply only one staff per OU? (This pattern is repeated for the virtual TA delivery, Coordination for Data Collection, and Support for Capacity Building Workshops.)

While it would be fine for the offeror to propose two technical assistance (TA) providers per operating unit (OU), it should be noted that engaging two TA providers per OU does not double the LOE from 2400 total hours of in-person TA to 4800 hours (IGCE was constructed based on

2400 hours). The 2400 hours will be divided between the two TA providers. This would apply to other components as well i.e., virtual TA delivery, coordination for data collection.

2. Although I had asked below about having two TA providers per operating unit while completing the different tasks, in the current EATAP contract we have used only one TA provider in a couple of OUs. For example, Papua New Guinea has only 3 implementing mechanisms, so we combined that with Indonesia. It states in the RFP (p. 121): The contractor should identify the appropriate quantity and quality of talent capable of successfully accomplishing this task. Does this mean sometimes it can be two TA providers, whereas other times it can be only one? The LOE chart seems to be so specific – perhaps the wording should be “Maximum of xxx hours” or something to that effect (with the “xxx” hopefully including two TA providers per OU for each of the tasks listed)?

The LOE per operating unit is an estimated average. It does not mean that each operating unit will require the exact same hours of TA e.g., full four weeks of in-person TA. For smaller programs, the need might be for fewer weeks. As long as an offeror’s proposed staffing plan supports the estimated LOE proposed for TA delivery and coordination for data collection, it will be acceptable.

3. As part of the current EATAP project, a TA is positioned to centrally manage implementing mechanisms, which are usually based in Washington DC. There have been many requests from these centrally managed mechanisms for separate capacity building efforts, which would be part of the IP capacity building objective in EATAP II. This would probably be best undertaken by a US-based person, ideally the same person who provides the TA.

However, there does not seem to be any LOE in the table to provide the TA for centrally managed mechanisms? Regarding the capacity building, providing that for the centrally managed mechanisms could perhaps be seen as one of the 10 capacity building workshops listed.

A separate line item for TA delivery to centrally managed mechanisms (implementing partners based in the US) is not included in the LOE table. While additional TA support may be required in this area, the total LOE estimate of 12,240 is considered sufficient to provide for this need if required. Offerors should propose the LOE as specified.

4. Section L.5, pg. 120. “All critical information from Section J, Attachments, should be summarized in the technical proposal”, can you please clarify if resumes, biodata forms, and references can be placed in the annexes section. We also request that biodata be included as part of the cost proposal due to it containing cost information

Include resumes and references as a part of the technical annex. Include biodata forms in the cost proposal.

5. Section L.5, pg.120, the following information is required from major subcontractors,” (1)

Management Structure, and (2) organization Chart(s)”, can you please clarify if it should be part of the technical approach page count or considered as annexes. Please also confirm that the offer is required to submit the following for major subcontractors as part of the cover page:

Company Name and Business Mailing Address

Point of Contact with Telephone, & Email Address

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS)

Verification of Central Contractor Registration (CCR) or SAM.gov registration

North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code

Business Size (in accordance with NAICS Code)

If correct, please consider changing the 1 page limit for the cover page as it will not be sufficient to provide the required information for Prime and Major Subcontractors.

As stated on page 119 of the RFP, the Management Structure and Organizational Charts will not be included in the technical proposal page limitation. Include the Management Structure and the

Organizational Charts of each major subcontractor as a part of the technical annex.

The offeror is required to include the cover page information for all of their subcontractors in their proposal; however, it should not be incorporated on the cover sheet. Only the prime contractor’s information should be included on the cover sheet as stated on page 119 of the RFP.

6. The technical approach does not include an Executive Summary, please confirm that an executive summary is not to be included as part of the technical volume, and if required please indicate page limit.

An Executive Summary is not required as a part of the technical volume and if submitted will not be considered.

7. Section L.5, pg. 121 “This section of the proposal provides information about the offeror’s past performance record implementing similar work. Similar work need not be with USAID or within US government agency. All past performance information must be submitted by using the Past Performance Matrix.” Please confirm that no past performance summary is required as part of the technical proposal page limit, outside of the Past Performance

Matrix?

A past performance summary is not required as a part of the technical proposal. Completion of the past performance matrix is required. If an offeror does not have any relevant past performance, the offeror must explain this clearly otherwise the lack of a completed past performance matrix will be considered a deficiency.

8. Will the countries that are supported by regional programs also require country-level support or will support be limited to the regional platform?

Currently the LOE chart does not distinguish the regional OUs from the country OUs, yet the two regional programs include a total of 8 countries.

● Asia (China, Laos, Thailand)

● Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)

The LOE is determined on the basis of each operating unit either a country or regional program.

While the primary point of support is the location where the regional program office is based e.g., Bangkok, Thailand in case of the Asia Regional Program, support may be required in selected countries that are part of the regional program. This support will not be in addition to what is already accounted for in the total LOE. The travel plug figure also accounts for any such potential need.

9. Page 9, “develop necessary budgeting and planning tools for USG teams to apply EA data for country/regional operational plan (COP/ROP) budgeting and programming; please clarify whether the “Systems and Budget Optimization Review (SBOR) with Template” is relevant to the development of new EA budget and planning tools. If applicable, please provide a copy of tool and manual.

The development of necessary budgeting and planning tools primarily refers to those which directly incorporate EA data. The Systems and Budget Optimization Review (SBOR) template does not incorporate EA data. Any potential impact of the SBOR on the development and/or refinement of existing EA-related budgeting tools will be discussed by the USAID project management team with the selected contractor when and if the need arises.

10. Page 10, mentions an Excel-based budgeting tool manual to support the COP budget development process and accompanying user guide, which was developed during the original EATAP contract. What is the name of this tool and can a copy of the tool and manual be provided?

The tool is called the “PEPFAR Budget Allocation Calculator (PBAC)”. This tool is used internally within USG and assists PEPFAR field teams to develop evidence-based country/regional operational plan budgets. The tool is not provided; however further description has been provided herein so that offerors can better understand the need and demonstrate their capability and experience with similar MS Excel based tools.

The PEPFAR Budget Allocation Calculator (PBAC) is an Excel-based tool designed to assist

PEPFAR country and regional program teams in the budgeting process of their Country/Regional

Operational Plans (COPs/ROPs). This tool allows country teams to select PEPFAR targets (for many countries, these targets are specific to a group of prioritized sub-national units (SNUs)) and identify resources needed to meet those targets. In addition, the country team identifies appropriate unit expenditure (UE) for each indicator/target. These UEs are typically obtained from the country's Expenditure Analysis (EA) data. PEPFAR country teams also input data about funds allocated for the fiscal year from the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator

(OGAC).

11. Could USAID kindly provide the Local Compensation Plans for each of the countries identified in the RFP?

We do not provide Local Compensation Plans due to the sensitive and dynamic nature of LCPs.

Please note: LCPs are only one suggested basis of estimate and are not required as a basis for estimates. As stated on page 124 of the RFP, “acceptable basis of estimate includes but not limited to: Local Compensation Plans LCP), General Schedule (GS) Pay Tables, and/or salary data from the contractor’s accounting system." Note also that waivers may be approved by the

Contract Officer to exceed local prevailing compensation levels when justified.

12. For the purposes of standardization, will USAID be proposing specific labor categories and the level of staff required (e.g., senior, mid-level) for each of the identified CLINs?

It is not USAID’s intention to standardize the labor categories or the level of staff required for this procurement. Please propose the labor categories and level of staff applicable for your technical approach.

13. Can the budget template be revised to break out each CLIN in to more than one proposed

Labor Category.? For example, can line 4 (CLIN001 – Staff in-house) of the Direct Labor

Detail Tab be further expanded (within the parameter of provided LOE) to reflect the different labor categories we expect to contribute to this activity?

The offeror may revise the budget template to account for additional labor categories for each of the CLINs identified in Attachment 6 based on their technical approach. However, please do not exceed the overall level of effort for each CLIN.

14. Subcontractor Budgets

a. Should there a separate Excel tab for each subcontractor budget and labeled, “Direct

Labor Detailed Budget” as provided in Attachment 6? Does USAID require this of a major or other subcontractor given the requirement in B.5, Indirect Costs on Page 7?

Each subcontractor may have their own NICRA and other supporting indirect cost information. In this case, each of the detail tabs for the subcontractors would need to be added together to roll up to a total detail tab.

b. Stated another way, how should the Prime Contractor incorporate indirect costs of multiple subcontractors into the template?

USAID has revised Attachment 6 to include two additional Detail Budget tabs for subcontractor’s labor and indirect costs. If additional subcontractor tabs are required based on your technical approach, please feel free to add additional detail budget tabs. Please note that the

Prime’s Detail Budget tab should only include total costs by subcontractor by year.

15. If subcontractor CLINS are embedded throughout the Direct Labor Detailed Budget Excel tab, looking at cell F224 for example, proposed hourly rate, it appears that this cell can be blanked out, since CLIN 015, for subcontractor X, for example, will be the aggregate, for subcontractor x LOE and subcontractor x costs in Line 225 (columns E and G).

USAID has revised Attachment 6 to blank out cell F224 and I224.

16. Please elaborate on what USAID wants to see for the illustrative labor categories for

“Training for Contractor Staff?

The training for contractor staff is primarily intended for the TA providers who will be assigned to operating units to provide EA technical assistance. The USG team has developed a standard curriculum for this training which includes but is not limited to: the PEPFAR Expenditure

Analysis background, methodology, timeline, TA provider roles and responsibilities, data collection template, allocation and categorization examples, data quality review, etc. Upon receiving this training from the USG team, the contractor will be expected to conduct refresher trainings on relevant topics for TA providers as needed. The plug number for travel includes this training.

17. Please elaborate on what USAID wants to see for the illustrative labor categories for “ad-hoc year round staff?

The labor category description “ad hoc year round staff” has been revised in Attachment 6 to state “Staff”. Please propose labor categories based on your technical approach.

18. Please elaborate on what USAID wants to see for the illustrative labor categories for

Planning-in-House staff?

The labor category description “in-house staff” has been revised in Attachment 6 to state “Staff”.

Please propose labor categories based on your technical approach.

19. There are many unknowns within the scope-of-work in terms of frequency of activities, especially under Task 3 which are ad-hoc. Specific ODCs on a per-country and overall basis could be challenging to obtain especially with the requirement on Page 124, item (c ) to provide quotes, supporting information and other comprehensive details where details about the scope are clearly unknown. There are many uncertainties given the level of detail in other tasks as well that may not allow a contractor to adequately price ODCs to the level of specificity required on Page 124. Can USAID provide additional guidance on the development of ODCs or potentially, would it be appropriate to provide a plug figure?

USAID has revised Attachment 6 to include an annual plug figure of $375,000. In addition, the other direct costs pricing instructions on page 125 have been revised to reflect the plug figure.

20. Under F.8 PROFESSIONAL LEVEL OF EFFORT, Support staff (including drivers, cleaners, security guards, etc.) is not included in the Professional LOE. Where should support staff LOE be placed within the budget template? Where should support staff LOE be placed within the budget for the Prime Contractor, subcontractors and consultants?

USAID has accounted for the support staff level of effort in the travel and other direct costs plug figures. No additional LOE should be proposed for support staff.

21. Given the specific NICRA structure of one’s organization, does a contractor have the leeway to modify the placement of various CLINS (e.g., overhead, fringe benefits, G&A, etc.) within the Excel template provided?

The contractor has leeway to apply their indirect rates based on their current NICRA and/or company policies within the Excel budget template. However, please do not modify the placement of the CLINs.

22. The budget template and estimated Level of Effort for Task 3 – “Support Capacity Building

Workshops Strengthen capacity for use of EA data for program planning and budgeting (15

OUs x 2 weeks per OU)”requires capacity needs assessment of USG Field Teams and

PEPFAR IPs as well as, skills transfer, capacity building, technical support and the development of reference materials. To effectively incorporate the effective use of data in a sustainable fashion we request that an increase of LOE be considered as 2 weeks per OU would not allow for a sustainable capacity development effort..

The LOE and number of operating units for task #3: Capacity Building is an estimated average

(2 weeks per OU x 15 OUs). It is anticipated that any potential need for increase in LOE related to this task will be part of the already estimated total LOE of 1200 hours a year.

23. Given the number modifications to the budget template that will be required based on the scope of questions asked above, affecting both technical and cost approach of Prime and

Subcontractors, we respectfully request a four-week turn-around time for the proposal submission subsequent to the issuance of the questions and answers.

The responses provided in this amendment do not substantially revise the solicitation. They provide clarification of the requirements and streamline some instructions such as the provision of a plug number for ODCs. Considering this, the due date for proposals remains unchanged.

24. Approximately how many PEPFAR IPs will be subject to the EA reporting requirements for each year of the period of performance?

Expenditure Analysis (EA) is an annual reporting requirement for PEPFAR and all implementing partners worldwide receiving PEPFAR funds will report into EA. For the purposes of this proposal, 15 operating units have been identified for the delivery of the estimated LOE. While these units are considered as likely locations of the TA, the list is illustrative and performance may be required elsewhere. In response to this question, those operating units and an illustrative list of the number of implementing mechanisms per country based on FY 2015 reporting is provided in the table below. The amount of TA required per IP will vary widely including some requiring no assistance. Also note that the number of implementing mechanisms per operating unit will vary in each reporting cycle.

Operating Unit

Total Number of Eligible Implementing

Mechanisms based on FY 2015 Reporting

Burma 8

Burundi 12

Cambodia 14

Cameroon 22

Cote d'Ivoire 46

Democratic Republic of the Congo 30

Haiti 41

India 26

Indonesia 11

Papua New Guinea 4

Rwanda 36

Ukraine 23

Asia Regional Program 17

Central Asia Regional Program 44

Total 334

25. In previous years, what was the volume of technical assistance requests from PEPFAR IPs?

What is the anticipated volume of technical assistance requests from IPs for the coming years?

While the amount of technical assistance per PEPFAR IPs will vary, the overall anticipated need for technical assistance to implementing partners and USG teams is expected to be consistent over the life of this award. The stated LOE accounts for the volume of technical assistance—in-person or virtual—as was experienced during the last year of expenditure analysis support reporting and this estimate should be relied upon for the proposal.

26. During the previous EATAP contract, were any technical assistance, training materials, and data collection tools provided in the native language? During the previous EATAP contract, were there any translation challenges that adversely affected training, data quality, and/or capacity building? Is there a need to translate any material into local language? If yes, how many translations may be required during each year of the performance period? Is there a need to validate and revise previously translated materials?

The primary EA reference materials were translated in French and Russian. This was based on the countries supported by the current EATAP contract. There were no translation challenges that adversely affected training, data quality, and/or capacity building. The translated materials primarily included but are not limited to: EA Overview Presentation, EA Guidance, EA Data

Collection Template and EA Technical Appendix. There is an anticipated need to revise and/or update the existing translations based on any changes incorporated in future EA reporting cycles.

27. In addition to developing training materials, is it expected that training webinars, teleconferences, and/or in-person one-on-one training sessions should be conducted to promote capacity building? Is it expected that qualitative, needs analyses be conducted prior to developing country and context specific capacity building approaches?

Training webinars, teleconferences, and/or in-person one-on-one training sessions are prescribed approaches that are part of task #1: Technical Assistance on Data Collection and Data Quality

Processes. These techniques could also be utilized as needed for task #3: Capacity Building. The capacity building needs for implementing partners around data collection and quality will be assessed by the TA providers as part of the technical assistance delivery during data collection.

Some qualitative, needs analyses for developing country and context specific capacity building approaches for USG/USAID missions may be required and would be conducted in close coordination with the USAID EA team.

28. During the previous EATAP contract, how many participants were there, on average, at capacity building events? When did these capacity building events typically occur in relation to the EA collection cycle of October 1st - November 15th?

Capacity building around data collection and quality occurred during the data collection time frame of October 1 st

– mid-November. Approximately 50 participants attended the session.

The capacity building for USAID missions could take place any time during a USG fiscal year, however, the anticipated need is typically post EA data collection and prior to the country teams beginning their country operational / regional operational planning process.

29. Will any of the data being collected be considered sensitive, and if so, what measures have been undertaken in the transmission of data? Are the data systems used to manage these sensitive data rated as FISMA Low or FISMA Moderate? Is an Authorization to Operate

(ATO) from the USAID CIO required?

The data being collected in the EA process is procurement sensitive. The data collection system used to house and manage these data is secure and under a different USG contract. Technical assistance providers will be working with implementing partners and will see or have access to this data. Therefore this contract and staff engaging in this contract will need to follow the confidentiality/non-disclosure and conflict of interest procedures associated with this contract.

This contract will not be expected to house and/or maintain any repository of any EA data within their mandate.

30. During the previous EATAP contract, were any modeling analyses conducted to identify data quality and implementation issues? What type of data quality issues were identified?

There were no modeling analyses conducted by the current EATAP contract to identify data quality and implementation issues. The EA process has established data quality steps which the implementing partners and USG teams are expected to follow and the selected offeror for this technical assistance award will assist them in successfully implementing and completing those steps.

Data quality issues were related but not limited to the following areas: miscategorization and/or misallocation of expenditures across program areas and/or geography, allocation of shared expenditures across program areas and/or geography, site-level vs above site-level, data collection system-related issues, additional queries identified by USG implementing mechanism

POC, etc.

31. What data cleaning, review and analysis techniques are currently in use? Where data quality issues are found, are the fixes made by the PEPFAR project team or is the IP asked to resubmit the data after making the corrections?

The Expenditure Analysis process has pre-established data quality steps. Some are automated within the data collection template and the data management system. Others are self-administered. Any data collection and/or quality issues identified by the TA provider in an implementing partner’s submission, it is the responsibility of the USG contract manager or the implementing partner to correct the submission. The TA providers’ responsibility upon identifying the error and communicating to the IP and USG POC is to follow-up and check if it has been resolved.

32. As per https://promisea.pepfarpromis.net/Account/About PROMIS supports PEPFAR

Program data collection, reporting and analysis for Country teams and their Partners. How will the program planning and budgeting tools developed under objective 2 in the statement of work (Page 13) interact with the PROMIS website?

The EA-related tools do not directly interact with the PROMIS EA data collection system.

33. Is there a possibility for exploring additional, non-Excel tools to improve data collection, validation, and analyses? Would there be funds to conduct qualitative interviews and ease-of-use assessments to gain better understanding of revisions to existing tools and development of alternative, culture and context specific tools?

The PEPFAR Expenditure Analysis has a pre-established process developed by the USG team.

The contractor as part of this project will be expected to share experiences, lessons learned and provide related suggestions on improving the data collection and data quality processes. It is not anticipated that this contract will be tasked with conducting a formal interview or assessment with the field to inform this process as it is part of the USG function.

34. Within how many days of signing the contract is the contractor expected to develop a

Performance Management Plan (PMP), in coordination with the project COR and

Technical/Activity Manager?

Performance monitoring plan that will be part of the work plan is to be submitted to the COR within the first 30 days of signing contract.

35. Avenir Health contract is indicated to be the incumbent. Will an offer by them be considered conflict of interest?

Avenir Health is subject to the solicitation provisions on conflict of interest, H.1, H.2 and H.3, as are all offerors for this award. Avenir Health’s current contract with USAID for expenditure analysis technical assistance is not considered a conflict of interest for this new requirement.

End of document

1. Replace Attachment J-6, Summary Budget Worksheet in its entirety. See new version attached.

2. Provide responses to questions received on the solicitation. Note Q23 which states that the due date of 02/02/16 is unchanged.

M/OAA/GH SA44 Room 549S 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC 20523