SAMDaily.us | SNOTE | 99 | Lesotho HSS PHC cGBV compiled RFI responses

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF AUGUST 10, 2022 SAM #7558
SPECIAL NOTICE

99 -- Lesotho HSS PHC cGBV compiled RFI responses

Notice Date: 8/8/2022 2:23:59 PM
Notice Type: Special Notice
NAICS: 541611 — Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
Contracting Office: MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION Washington DC 20005 USA
ZIP Code: 20005
Response Due: 10/31/2022 2:00:00 PM
Point of Contact: Interim Procurement Agent
E-Mail Address: zenobia.maddy@crownagents.co.uk
(zenobia.maddy@crownagents.co.uk)
Description: General Information Country:��LesothoCity/Locality:��MaseruPublication Date:��Jul 28, 2022Agency:��Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)Buyer:�� Original Language:��English Contact Information Address:��Lesotho Millennium Development Agency Maseru Lesotho Bidding documents and attachments Questions and answers: HSS_PHC_cGBV complied RFI responses (333 KB; Jul 28, 2022) ��Download documents Original Text HSS Question #3: Are there any parts of the scope, tasks, deliverables or personnel requirements that are unclear? If yes, please explain. Technical 1. In several instances, the division of roles, responsibilities and deliverables between this contract and the other contracts within the larger HSS Project is unclear, particularly the Digital Health Contract and the Financing Health Service Delivery Results Contract. For example, between the Digital Health Contract and the HSS/PHC/cGBV Support, it is not clear which Offeror is responsible for defining data requirements, data flows, and alignment with policy, and for different aspects of data analysis and use by DHMTs. The HSS/PHC/cGBV Support RFI also states that Offerors for that contract are to �work closely with the Digital Health Contractor to expand the e-Register system,� which leaves ambiguity around the MCA�s expectations for each contract. Likewise, there are elements of DHMT budgeting, financial management and capacity building in this RFI (tasks under 4.2.4) that seem potentially duplicative with the scope of the Financing Health Service Delivery Results Contract and elements of communication and health promotion (tasks under 4.2.7) that may overlap with the Health Communications Service Provision contract. a. We note your comments and will address the points raised as we review the SOW before the RFP is published. In addition to the breakdown of roles and deliverables across contracts, it would be helpful to have more information on planned mechanisms for coordination between the contracts and the extent to which work planning will be done jointly. b. Technical, administrative, and coordination oversight for the HSS Project will be provided by the MCA, HSS Project team. The MCA staff will be assisted in their mission by the MCA Support Contractor, hired to provide specialist technical support. MCA will establish a project steering committee, in close collaboration with the MOH to foster coordination in line with MOH priorities. The MCA�s expectation is the Contractors will work closely together to ensure synergies and efficiencies in delivering their individual contract requirements. The MCA staff will have an overview of all contracts through their role in approving workplans, deliverables, and participation in the steering committee and any TWGs. 2. As noted in the RFI, the US Government �particularly through PEPFAR �has substantial programming in Lesotho. While many of these activities are more narrowly focused on HIV and AIDS, they also address health systems issues, gender-based violence, information systems and data use more broadly in the health sector. For example, it is not clear if the existing Centers of Excellence will continue to be supported through PEPFAR and the timeframe for this work. It is also not clear if the HSS/PHC/cGBV Support contractor will be responsible for addressing any potential overlap with other programs or if the MCA is responsible for this coordination. It is anticipated the MCA will participate in donor coordination activities to support synergies and reduce overlap and duplication of effort with other programs. The Contractor will have a role in coordination through their work with the Ministry of Health, and other ministries, and they will liaise with other implementing partners working on HSS/GBV issues. If either the MCA or contractor becomes aware of overlap or duplication of effort with other programs, the contract will be modified to prevent duplication. 3. There is substantial overlap between Short-term Outcomes 3.2 and 3.3, particularly 3.2.2 and 3.3 with their shared focus on data use. Furthermore, there is substantial potential for overlap between the scope of Short-term Outcome 3.3 under this contract and the scope of the Digital Health contract. A clearer articulation of the scopes and their parameters would help offerors focus their strategies on the intended objectives/outcomes and reduce confusion and the risk of duplication of effort when implementation commences. Thank for your observations, we will review the SOWs to ensure greater clarity with respect to contractor roles and responsibilities in the final RFPs. 4. Under Task 4.2.1.3, the RFI states that �the Offeror will support DHMTs and facilities to advocate for the provision of these medications and supplies through existing pharmaceutical and medical supply systems� and �[a]ccording to the available resources... provide priority items as feasible.� It is unclear from the information provided how the status and structure of the existing pharmaceutical and medical supply systems informed the scope and deliverables of this task, particularly given the importance of sustainable health commodity availability to the effectiveness of PHC and the strength of the health system. Thank you for your observation, the contractor will not be expected to address pharmaceutical and medical supply systems as part of the HSS/GBV SOW. This will be clarified in the RFP. 5. Is the Offeror expected to create a new COE or work within the existing COE to integrate other programs beyond HIV/AIDS and T.B.? The contractor will create new COEs, in close collaboration with the MOH and DHMTs. Contractors can propose to expand existing COE. 6. Is the Offeror expected to conduct the training or support the local institutions to provide ongoing training (pre and in-service)? The contractor will support and build capacity of existing local institutions to provide training (pre and in-service). 7. What criteria will be utilized to identify Village Health Posts and to develop an operational plan? Furthermore, what mechanisms will be fortified to ensure successful referral and linkages from Village Health Posts to health facility level? The SOW does not envisage direct support to Village Health Posts nor the development of Health Post operational plans. 8. Considering the conscious and deliberate integration of cGBV into the health sector like never before, Lesotho�s health sector vis-�-vis the shortcoming in achieving health outcomes from investment, countries performance towards achieving the goals of UHC, and evolving state PHC and Village Health Worker Program, it would be helpful clarify intended institutional arrangements, and deliverables that are much more closely linked to stronger and resilient DHMT and facility-level health systems and health outcomes. Thank you for your observation. 9. As the e-register becomes more inclusive of other diseases, which diseases shall be the priority to incorporate into the digital system and what is the timeline to introduce each? This should be assessed by the HSS/PHC/cGBV Support contractor in collaboration with the MOH. Specifics should be included in the annual workplan. 10. Is the primary objective to integrate all described systems using one unique identifier into one interoperable environment and, thereafter, automate visual and reports? Yes, this is the long-term goal to be achieved in collaboration with the DH contract. 11. Will this integrated platform become the EMR to be used by clinicians and other patient interfacing staff? Or is the primary ask intended to pull data from other systems into the eRegister (EMR) platform? It is intended that the EMR platform will be used by clinicians and other patient facing staff. Other data will be pulled into the EMR to ensure clinicians and other patient facing staff have access to as much data as possible on individual patients. 12. Is there a possibility to use probabilistic matching within an interoperable environment to match and integrated all data sources? The DH contractor will be responsible for creating the interoperable environment with the information systems. 13. Is there a plan to transition from paper registries in the future or will they remain the primary source of data? The MOH�s long-term vision is that paper registers will be replaced by electronic registers. This project will contribute to this long-term vision. 14. Are there criteria for the development of Centers of Excellence for PHC? It is envisaged the Health System Strengthening Project�s Centers of Excellence will be set up in consultation with the Ministry of Health, including setting out detailed criteria, support needs and timeframe. Establishing the COEs will be achieved in close coordination with the DHMTs. 15. Can a macro-organogram of the Ministry be provided indicating roles and responsibilities to understand how the DHMTs link up with the Ministry of Health? Please refer to due diligence reports which were made available as part of the RFI. 16. Does the Ministry of Health have a Human Resources for Health plan or policy? We understand the MOH does not have an active Human Resource plan or policy at this time. 17. Does the Ministry have an Essential Medicine List and Essential Medical Equipment List for district health services? Currently there are no official/adopted lists of essential medicines or medical equipment at the district level. 18. Section 4.2.1.9 refers to support to the Lesotho Nursing Association. What is then the role of the Lesotho Nursing Council? The LNC will play an advocacy role in support of prioritization of PHC. The nursing council will be involved in development and diffusion of CPGs, SOWs and training programs (in and pre-service). 19. Will the Counter Domestic Violence Law be made available as part of the RFP? The cGBV law has not yet been gazetted but will be available to the public once it has been. 20. Can the role of [name of organization not included] in this project be outlined? There are no plans to outline the role of specific partners in the SOW. 21. How will this project interact with all donor funded programmes? The project, with and through the MCA, will interact through donor coordination mechanisms lead by the MOH and other relevant ministries. 22. Is there a list of all accredited health programme providers in Lesotho? Who accredits these programmes? The MCA does not intend to provide such a list. 23. Is there an inter-ministerial structure to integrate the work in this compact? The MCA (and MCC) will coordinate project activities with MOH and relevant ministries through the creation of a Project Steering Committee and mechanisms. 24. In this context, it does not clearly appear to us whether a management board will be set up in the context of the assignment. Please see response to question 23. 25. More clarity of the roles and responsibilities of Offeror, contractor, MCC, MCA and MOH would be helpful. Please refer to answer to question 1 b. above. 26. As many of the deliverables are already in the scope of services for DHMTs, it would be helpful to discuss the oversight structures that will facilitate more permanent change within DHMTs management and activities. What structures are involved so as to not develop parallel structures to work around the DHMTs that disappear after compact ends? Perhaps these plans will be part of phase 1? The project intends to work through and strengthen the existing annual joint review and annual operations planning processes to strengthen DHMT management and activities. By the end of phase 1 the Contractor should propose oversight structures to ensure sustained, system reform. 27. What equipment is envisioned to be procured under this contract? Would the purchase of the equipment purchase be covered under the contract amount of ~$32M? The list of equipment to be procured will be developed jointly by the contractor and the MOH. The cost of equipment procurement is included in the overall project ceiling amount. 28. While there is a clear focus on the Village Health Workers program it might be worth looking further into the areas of Behaviour Change Communication and demand creation elements. Linked to this the issue of effective supply chains would be an area that could be reviewed. The PFM elements presumably will link through to the separate procurement mentioned. As well as national health accounts (NHA) our recent experience of conducting a Public Expenditure Tracking Study (PETS) in Bangladesh with a focus on district and sub-district levels demonstrated the value of this tool to complement the other PFM tools such as NHAs. The PETS quickly highlighted a range of blockages, challenges in the flow of funds and resources from central to district and down to health facilities. It also highlighted to challenges in supervision, procurement systems and the lack of training that existed. It is a quick tool and more focused on the detail of why expenditure is often low and late. Offerors are encouraged to propose any methodologies capable of achieving optimal results for the project. 29. Can you provide more information about how this opportunity and, particularly, the support to strengthen DHMTs will be reinforced through the Financing Health Service Delivery Results granting mechanism? Will either mechanism be responsible for designing the performance-based grants to DHMTs? We have expertise in designing performance-based aid programs (that promote a �learning by doing� approach) and would be interested to understand if and how that scope will be managed among the mechanisms. Yes, it is hoped that the coordinated efforts of all procurements under the HSS project will be mutually supportive. The coordination will be provided by the MCA as described above. Personnel 30. It is unclear if the same key personnel are required for the Pre-Compact Phase and the Compact Phase, or if those listed are only for the Compact Phase. Also, given the long time period between proposal submission and the start of the Compact Phase, it is also not clear if and how proposed key personnel can be changed if necessary. The key personnel requirements apply to both pre-Compact and Compact phases of the project. 31. Given the challenges the Offeror may face in identifying key personnel meeting all stipulated requirements, can the Offeror propose non-Lesotho citizens/residents? Yes. There is no requirement that key personnel be Lesotho citizens. It is anticipated however that key personnel will be reside in Lesotho during the contract period. Contractual 32. If the contractor selected for the base period will automatically continue into the option years, barring any performance issues, or if there will be a separate procurement process for the Compact Phase. Dependent upon satisfactory performance during the base period, the same contractor will be contracted for the implementation of the option year(s). LMDA/MCA has the unilateral right to go back out to the market with an open procurement. 33. The extent to which base period assessments may result in changes to the larger project scope and how that will be addressed in the option year contracts. Changes, as deemed necessary or desirable, will be addressed through the annual workplan process for each of the option years. 34. When and on what criteria the decision to exercise each option year will be made by the MCA, and how far in advance the contractor will be informed. This decision will be made based on the performance of the consultant, their ability to maintain the original staff, perform the work per the contractual deliverables on time and achieving the work through high quality deliverables. The following documents can be found on the MCC website and may be useful to potential Bidders: MCC Guidance to Accountable Entities on Technical Reviews and No-Objections | Millennium Challenge Corporation MCC Program Procurement Guidelines | Millennium Challenge Corporation 35. How the payment schedule will be structured and negotiated The payment schedule is a technical component to be proposed by Bidders. The contractor�s work will be paid against deliverables per the agreed payment schedule. 36. We request that any procurement that is subsequently released provide for a brief question and answer period to allow for questions on either the technical or financial aspects of the procurement and related submission requirements. The MCA will provide a period for submissions of questions and answers as part of the RFP release process. Question #7: What questions do you have on the Scope, Tasks, Deliverables, Personnel or other parts of this RFI? Technical Pre compact phase 1. Will the two phases (Pre-Compact / Compact) be contracted separately or are these just two project periods within the same contract? Or would the contract be one contract, which, on the basis of a full assessment by MCA after completion of phase one of the contractor�s performance, the same contractor would be asked to continue to be in charge of phase two? Dependent upon satisfactory performance during the base period, the same contractor will be contracted for the implementation of the option year(s). LMDA/MCA has the unilateral right to go back out to the market. 2. Can the MCA confirm if Pre-Compact Task 4.1.4 on page 18 is inclusive of GBV services? If so, is the research also intended to address possible barriers to service uptake (including social and cultural barriers) in addition to drivers of demand related to VHWs and health worker staff? Yes. The research mentioned is to build on existing knowledge - (data - survey information) that has been established as part of this work and to conduct relevant research to address those barriers in each district - while there may be homogeny between districts there may be district specific barriers which need to be identified. 3. Can the MCA specify the scope of the services to be included in Pre-Compact Task 4.1.6 on page 18, given the multi-sectoral nature of GBV services? It is expected that the contractor will review existing work conducted as part of the C-TIP assessment and/or any other relevant assessments prior to conducting a mapping exercise to understand available service providers of GBV in each district. 4. Also in Pre-Compact Task 4.1.6, the RFI makes a reference to collaboration with a C-TIP assessment contractor for the Market-Driven Irrigated Horticulture) Project. Can the MCA clarify the planned timeline for MDIH contracting and if this mapping exercise will also be in the scope of that project? The C-TIP assessment will be conducted in 2022 and available to the contractor. 5. In Pre-Compact Task 4.1.8on page 19, the RFI indicates that the Offeror will support the MOH to conduct a national health accounts (NHA) exercise. Can the MCA clarify the type of support that is envisioned here (i.e., technical guidance, logistical/administrative support, analytical support) and if the cost of the NHA exercise is to be covered by the Offeror? The contractor will cover the cost and provide support to the MOH as needed to conduct the NHA with all three types of support mentioned. 6. Besides producing a donor and partner analysis as part of the �Base� stage (see 2 above), we would like to propose a national multi-sectoral consultation process early on in Phase 1. The purpose of such a meeting would be to get all partners to agree to align to one national plan. This would involve all state and non-state actors at all levels of the health system, importantly including district offices, other government departments (considering the GBV focus) and the private sector. This seminal event will be key to ensuring a coordinated and coherent effort to achieve project success. Awareness raising for PHC. Linked to the point above, we note that raising awareness about the importance of PHC, VHWs etc. using radio and TV is only scheduled in Phase 2. We would like to suggest that this activity is moved to early on in Phase 1 to heighten awareness of PHC and the economic rationale for it with the aim of influencing health workers, other government departments, national treasury, and other influential decision makers. In our opinion, for this reform effort to work it needs a whole of government, whole of health partnership approach, and this could happen earlier on in the project than is currently planned. In addition, to complement this awareness raising for PHC, we suggest that the cost benefit analysis work (essentially the investment case for PHC), be brought forward into Phase 1. This will serve as a key policy influence tool to convince decision makers to prioritize PHC to reap the associated economic benefits. Offerors are encouraged to propose any methodologies they wish to support project implementation and results. 7. It is outlined that the provision of the defined support will be in two phases. While Phase 2 will be composed of five option years, how long is Phase 1 as base period envisaged to last? The length of Phase 1 depends on both when the final Contract is awarded and when the Compact begins. Therefore, the time period is an estimate. If the Compact is substantially delayed, the Offeror may have a longer period for the assessment, however they should plan to have the assessment completed within 6 months. 8. To which extend will the Pre-Compact Tasks (Points 4.1.1 to 4.1.9) of Phase 1 con-tribute to the three short-term outcomes? In how far is Phase 1 presented in Figure1 ""HSS Project Logic Model""? All tasks have been defined based upon their contribution to HSS Project short term outcomes. Implementation period 9. On page 15, the RFI references a �national M&E policy in the offing.� Does the MCA have any further information on the likely timing and scope of this policy, as this impacts the expected task of supporting the development of an integrated M&E framework for the heath sector? At this time MCA has no further information on the M&E policy. 10. In reference to capacity building on the e-Register system, the RFI states on page 16-17 that �The Offeror will ensure the institutions or individuals trained as teachers [by the Digital Health Contractor] will provide training and capacity development to support end users such as nurses, clinicians, data entry clerks, and DHMT staff.� Can the MCA clarify if the end user training is to be financed through this contractor the Digital Health contract? Additionally, is this training intended to cover only new/expanded functionalities or also the existing HIV and TB modules supported by PEPFAR? The end user training will be a collaboration with the Digital Health Contractor and will be tailored to different audiences who will be using and supporting the system. 11. Under Compact Task 4.2.4.3 on page 25, it indicates that the Offeror must �work with local training institutions to develop the necessary curricula and collaborate with those training institutions to provide training to address identified needs.� Is this intended to be done through sub-contracts and financed through the HSS/PHC/cGBV Support contract budget? There is a similar activity on page 26(4.2.5.2) �is this also expected to be done through sub-contracts to pre-service and in-service institutions in Lesotho? Support to local training institutions is envisaged through subcontracts and/or grants. 12. Provide training on GBV to health staff, law enforcement and civil society Task/Deliverable: 4.2.5.4 Question: The narrative description for this task specifies training for health workers and advocating for training for the other sectors. Can you please clarify if the training expected to be conducted by the Offeror is to be for health workers only, or also for other sectors? This training is to be provided for health workers only. However, the Contractor must ensure the training will enable referral with other services, thus collaboration across sectors is expected, including through the Anti-GBV Coordination Forum. 13. Can the MCA clarify if the Offeror is to directly provide training to DHMT staff on cash planning and accounting under Compact Task 4.2.4.4, which states that the Offeror should �support the MOH to support the DHMTs to capacitate their staff�? The contractor will not conduct the training directly, instead it is anticipated that counterparts will lead trainings with the support of the contractor. 14. We would like to know if there is a commitment to any particular training approach? Offerors are encouraged to propose the training approach(es) of their choosing. 15. For the tasks listed under section 4.2 of the Compact Tasks starting on page 19, can the MCA clarify if these are focused on all health facilities or on both public and private facilities? The HSS/PHC/cGBV project will focus on MOH and GoL subvented health facilities. 16. In Compact Task 4.2.1.1, the Offeror is expected to identify �staff supported by donors.� Can the MCA clarify how this is being defined in this context and what it includes? The footnote references only data clerks and records assistants, but donor-funded programs in Lesotho have a range of clinical and non-clinical staff. All donor funded/supported staff are to be considered. 17. The activities outlined in 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 are critically important but major undertakings within the health sector. Realignment of staff, equipment/commodities and operating budget in alignment with the Essential Health Package is a major analytical undertaking (especially given the quality and accessibility of existing data sources) and an even larger reform agenda that will require buy-in from leaders in several ministries and significant commitment at the technocratic level to advance these reforms. Will there be any performance-based grant making opportunities under MCA at the central level to help to align Government focus around these activities? Detailed design of results-based financing tool will take place in the Pre-compact stage by the FHDR contractor. 18. In Compact Task 4.2.1.3 on page 20, the RFI states that the Offeror must �work with the DHMT to develop a priority list of equipment to be addressed through the Offeror�s resources and potentially through RBF incentives. The HSS/PHC/cGBV budget anticipates approximately US$ 2 million for equipment purchases for health facilities.� Can the MCA clarify: 1) if the $2 million for equipment is included within the ceiling for this contract; 2) if the results-based financing (RBF) incentives are also included within the $2 million; and 3) if the Offeror would be responsible for designing and implementing the RBF incentive mechanism? Yes, the $2 million is within the overall HSS/PHC/cGBV Support contract ceiling. The RBF incentive payments are a separate budget and will be paid directly to the selected beneficiaries by the MCA based on verified data confirming results and performance. The RBF will be designed and implemented under a separate procurement from the MCA. 19. In Compact Task 4.2.1.3 on page 20, the RFI indicates that a �priority list of medications� will be developed and that �According to the available resources, the Offeror will provide priority items as feasible.� Can the MCA clarify: 1)if the priority list is to be developed by the MOH or by the Offeror; 2)if the Offeror would be expected to procure priority medications, or only equipment and consumable supplies; and 3) if the Offeror�s budget would be used to procure medications? The Contractor will be expected to develop the list jointly with the MOH. The Contractor will not procure medicines under this procurement. 20. In Compact Task 4.2.1.4on page 20, it states that the Offeror will �ensure MOH systems are established and used to disseminate updated CPGs and SOPs and train MOH staff before they are used.� Is the dissemination and training to be financed through this contract or directly by the MOH? Dissemination will be financed through the contract. 21. In Compact Task 4.2.1.5on page 20, the RFI references referral guidelines and protocols for public and CHAL facilities. Can the MCA confirm if Red Cross facilities are also included in this task? Similarly, are Red Cross facilities included in Compact Task 4.2.3.5 on page 24? Yes, they are included in these tasks, as are all MOH/GOL subvented facilities. 22. In Compact task 4.2.1.8 on page 22, can the MCA confirm that the Centers of Excellence (COEs) are to be additional to those that are already in operation (through Baylor)? And are only new COEs to be used for the development and testing of benchmarks, standards and SOPs in this task? The contractor will create new COEs, in close collaboration with the MOH and DHMTs. Additionally, existing COEs can also function as COEs for the new CPGs and SOPs. 23. Compact Task 4.2.1.9 on page 22 refers to a milestone-based grant to the Lesotho Nurses Association. Can the MCA clarify the amount of funding envisioned for this grant and confirm if this is included within the contract ceiling? This grant will be $25,000 for each year of the contract and is included in the budget ceiling. 24. In the tasks under 4.2.2 (VHWs) on page 22-23, there are several references to inclusion of a GBV module. Can the MCA clarify if this is referring to modules to be included within relevant SOPs, or if this refers to a training module? The reference is to clinical guidelines and SOPs such as WHOs �Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence against Women�. 25. Also, are Compact Tasks 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 referring to the same module or two distinct modules? The modules are not the same. 26. Is the technical working group referenced in Compact Task 4.2.3.1 on page 23 intended to be separate from the existing Anti-GBV Coordination Forum? It is proposed that technical working groups will be created for the integration of clinical GBV guidelines that will involve DHMTS and other relevant stakeholders. They will be required to go into more detail than is required for the Anti-GBV Coordination Forum, but progress and updates will be reported in the larger Coordination Forum. It is not the intention to replace the Anti-GBV Coordination Forum. 27. Is the baseline referenced in Compact Task 4.2.3.3 on page 23 conducted and paid for by the Offeror, or is the assistance referred to intended to be technical guidance only? The baseline will be conducted by and paid for by the Contractor. 28. Under Compact Task 4.2.3.5 on page 24, the RFI references an MOH GBV focal point. Can the MCA confirm if this focal point is already in place? Yes, the GBV Focal Point for the MOH is the Adolescent Health Director. 29. Task 4.2.4.5 on page 25 includes an assessment of the IFMIS and the CBMS. This task is also included in the Digital Health RFI. Which contractor will be responsible for conducting the assessment? The HSS/PHC/cGBV Contractor, in consultation with the Digital Health Contractor, will assess the use of IFMIS and CBMS by the DHMTs and MOH overall, and determine how these systems can improve management of the healthcare system. This will be provided as guidance to and agreed upon with the Digital Health contractor, including requirements and recommendations for interconnectivity/interoperability as well as defining data and reporting requirements that the DH contractor will make available to users. In parallel, the Digital Health Contractor will assess if and how IFMIS/CBMS can be interconnected/interoperable with the health management systems and how the data and reporting requirements will be met to achieve the agreed objectives. 30. Can the MCA clarify the difference between the training on VHW management under Compact Task 4.2.5.3 on page 26 and 4.2.2.2on page 23? Thank you for this observation. This will be clarified in the RFP. 31. Given that systems for collecting and managing GBV data (and for linking health data to financial data) are not yet in place and will only begin to be developed during the Compact Phase, would ...
Web Link: SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/5f3e3a685e464a15a9ee4b767dd97988/view)
Place of Performance: Address: LSO; Country: LSO
Record: SN06417535-F 20220810/220808230112 (samdaily.us)
Source: SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

99 -- Lesotho HSS PHC cGBV compiled RFI responses