Project Information

Bid Title

Data Collection Firm - Ethiopia DMPA Value Proposition Study - Q&A final

Issuing Agency

FHI 360

Location

District of Columbia

Published Date

Jan 8, 2026

Closing Date

Jan 21, 2026

Government Level

State & Local

Status

Closed

Ref. #

2025-DMPA-001_RFQ_02

Original Source

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Inquiries

Join to Access Full Details

Bid Documents

Join to Access Full Details

Project Description

Data Collection Firm - Ethiopia DMPA Value Proposition Study
RFQ No.: 2025-DMPA-001_RFQ_02

Issue date: 12 Dec, 2025
Closing date: 21 Jan, 2026

Solicitation file(s):
RFP_Ethiopia Sub.pdf (313 KB)
Annex 2 - Budget Format.xlsx (56 KB)

Modification file(s):
Annex 1 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf (49 KB)
RFP_Ethiopia Q&A final.pdf (278 KB)

Attachment Preview

Questions and Answers: RFQ 2025-DMPA-001

Solicitation Title:

Solicitation Number:

Submit Questions and Proposal to:

Date of Issue of RFQ:

Date Questions from Supplier Due:

Date Answers due from FHI 360:

Date Proposal Due:

Data Collection Period

Anticipated total Period of Performance:

Approximate Timeframe Vendor Agreement

Issued to Successful Candidate(s):

Data Collection Firm – Ethiopia DMPA Value

Proposition Study

2025-DMPA-001

Grace Cooney (GCooney@fhi360.org )

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

Monday, January 5, 2026

Friday, January 9, 2026

Wednesday, January 21, 2026, by 5pm ET

12 months

24 months

March 2026

Questions

1. In-country dissemination: The RFQ states that the vendor shall arrange for and host two, in-

country dissemination of study findings in accordance with local expectations. Would you

please clarify what costs need to be factored in relation to this so that we can make a

reasonable cost estimation? Is the vendor expected to cover hall rent, refreshment, perdiem,

etc.? If yes, how many participants are expected to be invited for each dissemination?

The vendor should account for dissemination costs as appropriate (space rental, catering) and

include them in the budget. We will provide feedback to the selected vendor on their budget to

ensure the estimations align with our expectations. For the budget exercise, vendor should

provide estimate for 50 attendees per meeting.

2. Conduct and audio record 20 group discussions with DMPA providers: Are the 20 group

discussions to be conducted in one round during implementation or repeated during each

quarter? This will help us for cost estimation.

The group discussions will be cross-sectional (i.e., only done at one timepoint in each location).

They may be conducted concurrently with baseline data collection for the cohort study or

completed during separate field visits; the vendor should propose a schedule/staffing plan to

optimize the quality and efficiency of data collection.

RFP - Questions

1

January 2026

3. We note that the general and specific objectives are not clearly stated in the RFP. While these

can be derived from the overall scope of work, it would be helpful if they were clearly

specified to ensure our proposal precisely aligns with your priorities.

The goal of this study is to compare the benefits of provider-administered (PA) intramuscular

(IM) injection of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), PA subcutaneous (SC) injection of

DMPA and self-injection (SI) of DMPA-SC. The objectives are:

• To compare the experiences of injectable users (PA DMPA-IM, PA DMPA-SC, and DMPA-

SC SI) over a 12-month period.

• To compare provider attitudes and the resources required (including supplies, provider

time, infrastructure, etc.) to offer each contraceptive injectable option.

4. The RFP states a need for approximately 300 users in each injectable modality (900 total).

Given the current low uptake of self-injection (SI) mentioned in the background , what is the

contingency plan if sites cannot reach the target of 300 SI users within the anticipated

enrollment period?

We have strived to select adequate sites to ensure we are able to meet enrollment targets across

sites and modalities by reviewing recent monthly DMPA service volume data for the proposed

sites. For some facilities, DMPA-SC SI and PA DMPA-SC monthly service volume was also

available.

During the study period, demand generation activities around DMPA-SC and DMPA-SC SI will be

ongoing. In the event the sites cannot reach the target of SI users, the vendor will need to

document efforts to meet the target and FHI 360 and the vendor will plan to shift recruitment to

other sites, extend the enrollment period/period of performance, and/or proceed with a smaller

sample size.

5. It is specified that half of the users should be recruited from Health Extension Workers (HEWs)

to compare facility vs. community-based provision. Does FHI 360 expect data collectors to be

stationed at Health Posts, or will HEWs facilitate client identification for data collectors to

meet at a central location?

We welcome vendors’ input on feasible approaches to complete recruitment of community-

based clients. We have outline below our expected procedures based on data collection

experiences in Malawi, but updates are anticipated based on local context and input from the

selected vendor, our implementing partner in Ethiopia, and the IRB.

Given the sparseness and ad hoc service delivery of some community-based providers,

community-based providers’ clients may not be able to have their enrollment interviews

conducted the same day they received injectable services. Community-based providers will follow

the same recruitment procedures as facility-based providers (e.g., use an IRB-approved

recruitment script to provide general information about the study objectives and procedures to

all clients receiving injectables during the recruitment period), however clients who agree to

learn more about the study will be referred to study staff members that day or, if not feasible,

(e.g., the service was provided at night or far away), in the days that follow the service provision,

but no longer than one week after the service.

Community-based providers will contact the study staff members via phone or in-person to

coordinate a time and place for the interested client to meet the study staff member.

Community-based providers already have the clients’ contact information as part of their health

care duties and, with the clients’ verbal permission, community-based providers may use this

information to contact the client after the service is provided to coordinate the meeting.

RFP - Questions

2

January 2026

However, community-based providers will not share the clients’ contact information with the

study staff members at any time.

6. What is the expected distribution of participants across the 12 study sites? Should vendors

plan for an even distribution (for instance, 75 participants per site) or will the allocation be

informed by population size, modality availability, or facility type?

The distribution of participants across the 12 study sites will be informed by method availability,

client volume, and population sizes at each facility. The expected number of participants to be

recruited per site will be shared with the selected vendor.

7. The RFP notes a waiver of parental consent will be requested for participants under the age of

majority. Has FHI 360 already secured preliminary feedback from the National Research Ethics

Review Committee regarding the likelihood of this waiver?

We have not yet secured preliminary feedback for the National Research Ethics Review

Committee but have developed the protocol in cooperation with our implementing partner, who

has recently secured a waiver of informed consent for a study with similar scope. The local IRB

did not raise concerns about granting the waiver based on the following considerations:

• Certain girls seek health services unaccompanied and excluding them would systematically

omit older or more vulnerable adolescents who may lack supportive caregivers.

• Including unaccompanied minors was essential to ensure equity and to understand the

experiences of the most marginalized girls.

• A key justification was that contacting parents/guardians was not feasible or ethical if the

caregiver was unaware that the adolescent sought care—which would the case with seeking

DMPA-SC services as well.

If the waiver is not approved, we will likely not include non-emancipated minors due to the

logistic challenges of obtaining parental consent.

8. Two of the study sites are located in the Tigray region (Mekelle Zone). Given the fluctuating

security situation, what is FHI 360's policy on site substitution or remote data collection if

physical access to Tigray or specific zones in Amhara/Oromia becomes restricted during the

12-month follow-up?

The safety of partners, staff, and participants are critical to our team. The MOH and our

implementing partner have provided input on site selection based on the following criteria:

• Located in safe and accessible locations

• Currently provide all three DMPA methods or will as DMPA-SC services are expanded

• Have both HEWs and facility-based staff offering DMPA services

• Cover a good distribution of regions and serve populations living in different settings.

• Note: one health center for Tigray Region was added, as it serves IDP populations, which are

a subpopulation of interest

In the event there are disruptions to access to any sites for safety or other reasons, follow up

interviews may be conducted by phone as described in Q13. If access is not possible during

enrollment, alternative sites may be selected in consultation with the MOH and other partners or

the data collection schedule may be altered.

RFP - Questions

3

January 2026

9. The vendor is required to host two in-country dissemination events. Should the budget

account for the travel and per diem of MOH officials and regional health bureau

representatives for these events, or only the venue and logistical costs?

The vendor should propose budget for MOH participation based on typical practices for donor

funded studies and programs in Ethiopia. We anticipate the vendor would include travel

expenses and per diem expenses for MOH staff but no honorarium or direct payment would be

included. Units and per unit costs should be shown in the budget.

10. The scope of work notes that providers will read a brief recruitment script to clients, after

which data collectors will follow up to complete enrollment. Can you clarify whether the

vendor is responsible for managing recruitment targets and modality quotas at each site, or

whether FHI 360 will actively oversee recruitment to ensure balance across injectable

modalities?

The vendor and FHI 360 will work closely to manage recruitment to ensure balance across

injectable modalities and sites, which will be facilitated by shared access to the cloud-based

server and excel tools and daily check ins during recruitment. However, the vendor will be

ultimately responsible for managing the recruitment targets and modality quotas since they will

be in the field and have real-time information on the recruitment process. The vendor should

propose staff with data management skills to participate in high quality, near real-time quota

monitoring.

11. For the 20 provider group discussions, recruitment is described as using scripts provided by

FHI 360. Should vendors assume full responsibility for identifying, scheduling, and convening

providers (including venue arrangements and coordination with facility leadership), or will FHI

360/MOH support provider mobilization?

We welcome vendors’ input on feasible approaches to complete recruitment of providers. We

have outline below our expected procedures based on data collection experiences in Malawi, but

updates are anticipated based on local context and input from the selected vendor, our

implementing partner in Ethiopia, and the IRB. Please note that facilities and providers to be

engaged in the study are in sites where DMPA-SI training and promotion activities will be

ongoing.

The facility-in-charge and/or other supervisors at the study facilities will be asked to inform

potentially eligible providers at their facility about the study using an IRB-approved recruitment

script. The script will briefly explain the study, the group discussions, and have a clear statement

that the providers can refuse to participate, and their decision will not affect their employment.

If the potential participants are interested to learn more about the study, then they will be asked

to come to the location of the group discussions on a specific day/time. All eligible providers from

the study facilities will be invited to participate in the group discussion as described above. If

more than 10 are interested and available for each group, then the first 10 to express interest

will be asked to join the group discussion, with the next two providers being identified as

alternates.

On the day of the group discussion, but prior to collecting any data, trained study staff will

describe the study in detail to each potential participant individually using an IRB-approved

informed consent form, and after written consent is received, confirm eligibility prior to data

collection.

RFP - Questions

4

January 2026

12. The ToR indicates that FHI 360 will ensure US-based IRB approval, while the vendor is

responsible for local IRB and MOH approvals. Can local IRB and MOH submissions proceed in

parallel with the US-based IRB review, or must vendors wait until US IRB approval is granted?

Reviews can occur simultaneously, but any changes will need to be reconciled across reviewing

bodies before proceeding to data collector training and implementing data collection.

13. Given the longitudinal design with quarterly follow-ups over 12 months, can client follow-up

interviews be conducted by phone when in-person follow-up is not feasible, or should vendors

assume all follow-ups will be conducted in person?

Vendors should plan to conduct follow up interviews in a private setting near a study site, or at a

private location of the participant’s preference. While in-person interviews are preferred, follow-

up interviews may be conducted over the phone if the participant prefers this option. We will

attempt to follow-up with all client participants over the 12-month period even if they

discontinue using DMPA or FP altogether to document why they discontinued using DMPA or FP,

if they resume DMPA or FP and which method they choose over the follow-up period.

14. Number of Pages-Could you confirm the maximum page limit for the entire RFQ submission?

The document mentions a 2-page summary for expertise and experience, but it does not

clearly state the overall length allowed for the technical and cost proposals combined.

There is no limit for the overall package, although strong packages are typically clear and

concise. We ask that you carefully review the RFP to ensure all the required pieces have been

included.

15. Submission Format-Should the technical and cost proposals be submitted as two separate

attachments, or combined into a single document? This will help ensure compliance with your

preferred submission structure.

You are free to structure your package however you see fit. Since we ask for the budget to be

submitted in an excel format, vendors typically submit the proposals as two separate documents.

16. File Naming Convention-Is there a specific naming format required for the submission files

(e.g., including the solicitation number or vendor name)? This will help avoid any

administrative issues during review.

There are no requirements for file naming, please email your package to Grace Cooney

(gcooney@fhi360.org) with the name of the solicitation in the title of the email.

17. Workplan Details-Does the workplan need to include a detailed Gantt chart showing timelines

and milestones, or is a narrative description of activities and timelines sufficient?

There is no requirement for a Gantt chart, although it is recommended as an easy way to

visualize the proposed timeline.

18. Cost Categories-Are there any restrictions or caps on indirect costs, overhead rates, or

administrative fees that vendors should adhere to when preparing the budget?

There is a flow down cap from the Gates Foundation of up to 15% on indirect rates or overhead

and all costs provided in the budget will need to be justified in detail. Typically, vendors provide

RFP - Questions

5

January 2026

Commodity Codes

• NAICS 518210Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services
• NAICS 541330Engineering Services
• NAICS 541611Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
• NAICS 541690Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
• NAICS 541990All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

* Disclaimer: Government BidHub provides information on bids, RFPs (Requests for Proposals), and RFQs (Requests for Qualifications) solely for convenience and informational purposes. This site is not an official public notice board. For official details, responses, or inquiries, please contact the relevant government agency directly.