Karnali_Water_Secuity_Activity_(KAWAS)_Phased_Evaluation_Synopsis_.pdf

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

G.P.O. Box 295

U.S. Embassy, Maharajgunj

Kathmandu, Nepal

Telephone: +977.1.423.4000

Email: usaidnepal@usaid.gov

Website: https://www.usaid.gov/nepal

SYNOPSIS ISSUANCE DATE: Thursday, September 26, 2019

DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF

QUESTIONS:

Monday, September 30, 2019; 15:00 PM Nepal Standard Time (NPT; 5:45 hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC))

PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT

SUBMISSION DEADLINE (i.e., CLOSING RESPONSE DATE):

Friday, October 11, 2019; 15:00 PM NPT

ESTIMATED REQUEST FOR

PROPOSALS (RFP) ISSUANCE DATE:

Friday, November 08, 2019

SUBJECT:

Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1 (Federal Acquisition Regulation) §5.207 Preparation and Transmittal of Synopses

REFERENCE:

USAID/Nepal Karnali Water Security Activity (KAWAS) Project Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

Dear Potential Offerors, The United States Government (USG), represented by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Nepal (USAID/Nepal) shall seek proposals from qualified organizations interested in providing technical services for the “USAID/Nepal Karnali Water Security Activity

(KAWAS)”

USAID shall conduct this procurement through a full and open competition per FAR Part 15 procedures for contracting by negotiation utilizing a best-value tradeoff basis (i.e., the competitive negotiation process where the government evaluates both cost/price and non-cost/price factors and awards the contract to the offeror proposing the combination of factors which offers the best value to the government) per FAR §15.101-1. Moreover, this synopsis, and subsequent request for proposals (RFP), contemplates a phased evaluation process. All types of organizations may compete under this synopsis and RFP.

The USAID/Nepal mission contemplates awarding a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion cost reimbursement type contract per the FAR §16.306(d)(1) for a five-year period from the date of award with a $24.8 million (M) total estimated cost.

USAID publicizes this synopsis to increase competition, broaden industry participation towards meeting the Government requirement, and to assist small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to obtain contracts and subcontracts. Thus, mailto:usaidnepal@usaid.gov https://www.usaid.gov/nepal

USAID/Nepal (KAWAS) Synopsis

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

USAID encourages the participation to the maximum extent possible of small business concerns in this activity as a prime or subcontractor. USAID also encourages submissions that include partnerships of teams – prime and subcontractors – with regional or local partners.

To facilitate a prompt response, offerors must submit all questions and requests for clarification concerning this synopsis electronically no later than Monday, September 30, 2019; 15:00 PM NPT to the following email:

kathmanduoaaexchange@usaid.gov

If USAID receives substantive questions that affect the synopsis or necessitates changes to the closing date, time, or other aspects of the synopsis, USAID will amend this synopsis. USAID will issue and post any synopsis amendments on the GPE, the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, located at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Offerors are strongly encouraged to check the FBO website periodically as acknowledgement of any such amendments is required to accompany the offeror’s Proposed Technical Concept.

Offerors must format the Phase One Proposed Technical Concept subject line as follows:

72036719R00009 Karnali Water Security Activity (KAWAS) Project

I. SYNOPSIS DATA ELEMENTS

As per FAR 5.207, below please find the requisite synopsis data elements:

(a) CONTENT

(1)

Action Code (i.e., Opportunity/ Procurement Type)

Presolicitation

(2) Date Thursday, September 26

(3) Year 2019

(4) Contracting Office ZIP Code Not applicable (N/A)

(5) Classification Code

Product Service Code (PSC):

R425 – Support- Professional:

Engineering/Technical

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code:

541990 – All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services mailto:kathmanduoaaexchange@usaid.gov http://www.fedbizopps.gov/

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

(6) Contracting Office Address

USAID/Nepal Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA) G.P.O. Box 295 U.S. Embassy, Maharajgunj Kathmandu, Nepal

(7) Subject USAID/Nepal Karnali Water Security Activity (KAWAS)

(8) Proposed Solicitation Number 72036719R00009

(9) Closing Response Date Friday, October 11, 2019; 15:00 PM NPT

(10) Contact Point or Contracting Officer

Jack M. Adrien

(11) Contract Award and Solicitation Number

72036719R00009

(12) Contract Award Dollar Amount $24.8M

(13) Contract Line Item Number N/A

(14) Contract Award Date N/A

(15) Contractor N/A

(16) Description

(1) National Stock Number

(NSN)

N/A

(2.1) Specification

Please review Section II below for a detailed KAWAS description or specifications.

(2.2) Qualification Requirement

There is no qualification requirement that an offeror, its product, or service must meet for award eligibility. Thus, USAID provides no identification of the office from which additional information about the qualification requirement may be obtained.

(3) Manufacturer, Including

Part Number, Drawing Number

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

(4) Size, Dimensions, or Other

Form, Fit or Functional Description

(5) Predominant Material of

Manufacture

(6) Quantity, Including any

Options for Additional Quantities

Please see Specification above

(7) Unit of Issue Please see Specification above

(8) Destination Information Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal (Nepal)

(9) Delivery Schedule Variable

(10) Duration of the Contract

Period To be determined (five years)

(11)Sustainable Acquisition

Requirements

USAID will consider all responses from responsible sources which, if received timely, submit a bid, proposal, or quotation.

USAID will make the solicitation available through the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) (https://www.fedbizopps.gov).

(17) Place of Contract Performance Nepal

(18) Set-aside Status N/A

(b) TRANSMITTAL

Transmissions to the GPE must be in accordance with the interface description available via the Internet at http://www.fedbizopps.gov.

(c) NOTICE OF SOLICITATIONS CANCELLATION

The Contracting Officer will publish notices of solicitation cancellations (or indefinite suspensions) of proposed contract actions in the GPE.

II. KAWAS DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS

USAID/Nepal KAWAS seeks to create healthy, resilient, and water secure communities at the watershed level through strengthened water and sanitation governance that improves water resource https://www.fedbizopps.gov/ http://www.fedbizopps.gov/

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009 management (including water for more resilient and bio-diverse ecosystems), enhances sustainable access to drinking water, improves agriculture water management, and reduces the fecal pathogen burden in the environment from poorly managed non-sewered sanitation through fecal sludge management.

USAID/Nepal KAWAS has four interrelated objectives:

Objective 1: Increased sustainable access to safe drinking water and water for productive uses

Objective 2: Increased sustainable access to and use of safely managed sanitation through fecal sludge management

Objective 3: Strengthened governance for sustainable resilient management of water resources

Objective 4: Strengthened conservation of watersheds and biodiversity

To accomplish foregoing objectives, USAID/Nepal KAWAS brings together three sources of USAID funding:

(a) Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)/Water Directive;

(b) Feed the Future (FtF); and

(c) Environment/Biodiversity.

The core platform for the Activity is water and sanitation/fecal sludge service delivery, using WASH Directive funds. All use of WASH Directive funds must comply with the guidance in USAID’s Water and Development Plan found in the USG Global Water Strategy.1 Design for multiple use water systems (where one of the uses is drinking water) can be supported by WASH Directive funds, though construction support for these systems is limited to the components providing drinking water. Costs for construction of productive uses, along with any specialized training and equipment related to the productive uses, must be funded by FtF funds.

Please review the complete KAWAS specifications provided under the draft SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK2 under ATTACHMENT 1 below.

III. PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND

NOTICES TO OFFERORS

A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

(a) The Government anticipates awarding one contract from this synopsis and subsequent RFP; however, it reserves the right not to make an award.

1 U.S. Government Global Water Strategy 2017 available at https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/Global_Water_Strategy_2017_final_508v2.pdf.

2 USAID reserves the right to amend the draft SECTION C –DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/

STATEMENT OF WORK prior to issuing the subsequent RFP.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/Global_Water_Strategy_2017_final_508v2.pdf

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

(b) Synopsis Instructions: If an offeror fails to follow the instructions set forth herein, the offeror’s Proposed Technical Concept may be eliminated from further consideration or the Proposed Technical Concept may be downgraded and not receive full or partial credit under the applicable evaluation criteria.

(c) Accurate and Complete Information: Offerors must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this synopsis. The penalty for making false statements to the Government is prescribed in Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) §1001.

(d) Offer Acceptability: The Government may determine an offer to be unacceptable if the offer does not comply with all terms and conditions of the synopsis.

(e) Preparation Costs: The USG will not pay for any Proposed Technical Concept, Concept Paper, or Oral Presentation preparation costs.

(f) Negotiation Process: USAID envisages the following phased evaluation with multiple step offer submissions toward award of the final KAWAS contract:

Table 1. KAWAS Phased Evaluation with Multiple-Step Offer Submissions

KAWAS Phased Evaluation with Multiple-Step Offer Submissions

P h a se

O n e

Release Synopsis Describing all Evaluation Factors, and Request Proposed Technical Concept Addressing Phase One Factors

2 Receive Phase One Proposed Technical Concept

3 Evaluate Phase One Evaluation Factors

Down-Select a Subset of Proposed Technical Concepts to Proceed to Phase Two

Preaward Notification of Exclusion from Further Consideration per FAR 15.503(a)(1)

P h a se

T w o

Request Concept Papers Addressing Phase Two Factors only from Proposed Technical Concepts Selected to Proceed to Phase Two

7 Receive Concept Papers

8 Evaluate Phase Two Evaluation Factors

9 Competitive Range established

10 Competitive Range Notification to Offerors per FAR 15.503(a)(1)

P h a se

T h re e

Request Oral Presentations Addressing Phase Three Factors only from Offerors in Competitive Range

12 Oral Presentations

13 Evaluate Phase Three Evaluation Factors

14 Discussions

P h

F o u r

15 Request Final Proposal Revision

16 Receive Final Proposal Revision

17 Final Proposal Revision Evaluation

18 Selection (i.e., award to successful Offeror)

P h

F iv e

19 Co-Design Workshop

B. PHASED EVALUATION WITH MULTIPLE-STEP OFFER SUBMISSIONS

Given that USAID anticipates many submissions in response to USAID/Nepal KAWAS, the requirement will utilize a phased evaluation. To this end, USAID will evaluate Proposed Technical Concepts submitted in response to this synopsis in Phase One per the synopsis Section IV evaluation factors.

C. PHASE ONE EVALUATION

Offerors must submit a Proposed Technical Concept that responds to the objectives outlined under synopsis Section II above per the page and formatting dimensions and limitations under synopsis Section III.D below. USAID will conduct a technical evaluation of the Proposed Technical Concept per FAR 15.305(a)(3) and USAID Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) 715.303- 70, respectively; rate submitted Proposed Technical Concepts as Acceptable or Unacceptable;

and invite only those organizations whose Proposed Technical Concept rated as Acceptable to submit a Concept Paper per the terms of the subsequent request for proposals (RFP). USAID will not consider Proposed Technical Concepts found Unacceptable under the technical approach factor during Phase One per synopsis Section IV below. Nevertheless, per FAR 15.503(a)(1), the Contracting Officer shall notify offerors promptly in writing when their Proposed Technical Concepts are eliminated from the competition and prior to issuance of the subsequent RFP.

To receive an Acceptable rating, offerors must put forth a clear, appropriate, collaborative, and feasible technical approach, including methodology and techniques, to successfully implement each component per synopsis Section II above and for supporting USAID/Nepal to achieve the KAWAS requirements.

D. PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT PAGE AND FORMATTING

DIMENSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The Proposed Technical Concept should address how the offeror intends to achieve objectives outlined under synopsis Section II above. Further, the offeror should put forth a specific, complete, and concise Proposed Technical Concept responsive to the instructions contained herein. Lastly, the Proposed Technical Concept should clearly demonstrate how the proposed approach will meet the KAWAS goals, objectives, and principles as well as fulfill the contractor’s implementation responsibilities.

Below please find the Proposed Technical Concept page and formatting dimensions and limitations:

● Paper Size:

○ Letter or American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Letter (i.e., 8.5 by 11.0 inches or 215.9 millimeters (mm) by 279.4 mm); or

○ A4 (i.e., 8.27 inches × 11.7 inches or 210mm × 297 mm).

● Type Size: 12-point font

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

● Font Style: Times New Roman or similar serif typeface

● Spacing: Single spaced

● Margins: 1-inch (25.4 mm) top, bottom, left, and right

● Page Limitation: Not to exceed 4 pages. USAID will not consider any pages that exceed the prescribed page limitation.

● Front Matter: Below please find the front matter that does not count against the 4-page limitation:

○ Cover Page (no more than 1 full page);

○ Acronym List; and

○ Executive Summary (no more than 1 full page).

● Proposed Technical Concept Corpus: Below please find the requisite written texts that count against the 4-page limitation:

○ Technical Approach and Understanding (no more than 1 full page);

○ Integration Plan (no more than 1 full page);

○ Management Plan (no more than 1 full page); and

○ Staffing Plan and Key Personnel (no more than 1 full page).

● Required Annexes: Below please find the required annexes (i.e., end matter) that do not count against the 4-page limitation, but each of which has its own page limitations:

○ Management Organogram (no more than 1 full page).

Offerors must submit documents in MS Word or PDF (.pdf). DO NOT send files in ZIP file format.

Use of smaller font sizes or alternative page format may result in removal of proposal material provided to the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) per AIDAR 715.303-70. The offeror must sequentially number each page and organize the Proposed Technical Concept according to the technical evaluation criteria listed in synopsis Section IV below. USAID will not evaluate concept paper pages that exceed the 4-page limit per Section III.D above.

Proposed Technical Concepts must not reference cost data so that the technical evaluation may proceed strictly based on technical merit.

IV. PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT PHASE ONE EVALUATION FACTORS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) The Government may award a contract without discussions with offerors per FAR §52.215-1. Therefore, the offeror’s initial Proposed Technical Concept should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

(b) The Government intends to evaluate offerors’ Proposed Technical Concept per FAR 15.305(a)(3) and USAID AIDAR 715.303-70, respectively; rate submitted Proposed Technical Concepts as Acceptable or Unacceptable; and invite only those organizations whose Proposed Technical Concept rated as Acceptable to submit a Concept Paper per the terms of the subsequent RFP.

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

(c) A TEC will rate the submitted Proposed Technical Concepts using the technical criteria shown below. The evaluation committee may include industry experts who are not employees of the Federal Government.

(d) For overall evaluation purposes, per FAR 15.304(e)(1), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price factors. USAID will not evaluate or rate the cost proposal and the relative importance of cost is substantially less than technical factors. Review of the cost proposal must include primarily cost realism, allowability and reasonableness analyses. While cost is a factor, especially as between closely ranked technical proposals, it is expected that the choice of Contractor for this work will be based on technical merit.

B. PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT PHASE ONE EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation criteria serve to:

(a) Identify significant matters that offerors should address in their Proposed Technical

Concepts; and

(b) Set the standard against which USAID will evaluate all Proposed Technical

Concepts.

Below please find the criteria against which USAID will evaluate requested Concept Papers in Phase Two in the subsequent RFP:

(a) Technical Approach and Understanding;

(b) Management and Staffing Plan; and

(c) Past Performance.

(1) Technical Approach and Understanding is more important than (2) Management and Staffing Plan. Further, both (1) and (2) are more important than (3) Past Performance. Lastly, the subfactors are equally weighted within their given factors.

Table 2. KAWAS Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria

Technical Approach and Understanding Technical Approach and Understanding Integration Plan Management and Staffing Plan Management Plan Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Past Performance

USAID will evaluate the Phase One Proposed Technical Concepts based on the following two evaluation factors:

(a) Technical Approach and Understanding; and

(b) Management and Staffing Plan.

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

However, the Proposed Technical Concept must be evaluated as Acceptable under each subfactor to receive an overall Acceptable rating. Thus, the Proposed Technical Concept must achieve an Acceptable rating for USAID to invite the offeror to submit a Concept Paper per the terms of the subsequent RFP.

Table 3. Sample Evaluation of Proposed Technical Concept Invited to Proceed to Phase Two

Phase One Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Proposed Technical Concept Subfactor Rating

Proposed Technical Concept Evaluation Factor

Rating

Technical Approach and Understanding

Technical Approach and Understanding

Acceptable Acceptable

Integration Plan Acceptable

Management and Staffing Plan

Management Plan Acceptable Acceptable

Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Acceptable

OVERALL PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT

RATING

Acceptable

Table 4. Sample Evaluation of Proposed Technical Concept Not Invited to Proceed to Phase Two

Phase One Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Proposed Technical Concept Subfactor Rating

Proposed Technical Concept Evaluation Factor

Rating

Technical Approach and Understanding

Technical Approach and Understanding

Acceptable Unacceptable

Integration Plan Unacceptable

Management and Staffing Plan

Management Plan Acceptable Acceptable

Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Acceptable

OVERALL PROPOSED TECHNICAL CONCEPT

RATING

Unacceptable

C. TECHNICAL APPROACH AND UNDERSTANDING

USAID will evaluate the Proposed Technical Concept based on the soundness and workability of the proposed technical approach, the demonstrated understanding of the requirement, and the extent to which the offeror presents a feasible integration plan.

As per synopsis Section C above, USAID will rate submitted Proposed Technical Concepts as Acceptable or Unacceptable. However, the Proposed Technical Concept must be evaluated as Acceptable under each technical subfactor to receive an overall Acceptable rating. USAID will only invite those organizations whose Proposed Technical Concept rates as Acceptable for both Phase One evaluation factors (i.e., Technical Approach and Understanding as well Management and Staffing Plan) to submit a Concept Paper per the terms of the subsequent request for proposals.

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

1. TECHNICAL APPROACH AND UNDERSTANDING

The Proposed Technical Concept must demonstrate a sound and workable technical approach that ensures a high probability of successful performance. Further, the Proposed Technical Concept must demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the requirement through the degree of thoroughness, soundness, and comprehension.

2. INTEGRATION PLAN

The Proposed Technical Concept must articulate an integration plan that defines how the offeror envisages the various KAWAS processes can work together for greater efficiency and productivity. Moreover, the integration plan must outline how the offeror will coordinate all KAWAS elements, including coordinating tasks, resources, stakeholders, and any other project elements.

D. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING PLAN

The Proposed Technical Concept must identify the offeror’s plan for efficiently managing the work proposed in its technical proposal.

As per synopsis Section C above, USAID will rate submitted Proposed Technical Concepts as Acceptable or Unacceptable. However, the Proposed Technical Concept must be evaluated as Acceptable under each management subfactor to receive an overall Acceptable rating. USAID will only invite those organizations whose Proposed Technical Concept rates as Acceptable for both Phase One evaluation factors (i.e., Technical Approach and Understanding as well Management and Staffing Plan) to submit a Concept Paper per the terms of the subsequent request for proposals.

1. MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Proposed Technical Concept must demonstrate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed management plan establishes well-defined lines of authority, responsibility, and communication as well as how well proposed management techniques will facilitate the early identification and resolution of problems and allow the offeror to changes. Further, USAID will evaluate the offeror’s commitment to the success of the program as demonstrated by corporate level of the proposed Chief of Party (COP), the COP’s access to upper management, and the degree to which upper management demonstrates its commitment to providing assistance in the event of problems.

2. STAFFING PLAN AND KEY PERSONNEL

The Proposed Technical Concept must articulate the extent to which the proposed staffing level and labor mix reflect the technical input and ability for successful and timely contract performance and, as appropriate, the offeror’s ability to react to workload fluctuations.

USAID will evaluate staffing to determine if the offeror proposes adequate staffing and assess the offeror’s understanding of the requirement.

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

Offerors must propose at least three, but no more than five key personnel positions, deemed critical to achieve the KAWAS project objectives. Offerors must propose a COP and specify at least two additional key persons. Offerors must explain how the roles and responsibilities of the proposed key personnel will help the offeror implement the activities, accomplish the results, and achieve indicator targets.

E. PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance is used to evaluate the quality of an offeror’s prior performance and is evaluated on the basis of how well the offeror performed the same or similar effort on past or current contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants and how that past performance is likely to affect the current effort.

Whilst USAID will not evaluate past performance in Phase One, USAID requests for offerors to please

1. The Offeror must provide past performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (i.e., any whose proposed cost exceeds 20 percent of the offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following:

(a) List in an Attachment to the Technical Proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar magnitude and complexity to this requirement. The Offeror must also have record of past performance and demonstrated experience in undertaking and successfully managing performance-based contracts.

(b) The Offeror should demonstrate an understanding of post conflict setting and experience of rebuilding governance and accountability, preferably in Asia. The Offeror should demonstrate utilization and awareness of the risk of ‘do no harm’ has experiences of developing conflict impact assessment tools, as well as an ability and skills to advance challenging governance reform processes with host country, USAID and other donors.

(c) Provide for each of the contracts listed above a list of contact names, job titles, phone numbers, email addresses and a description of the performance to include:

● statement of work or complexity/diversity of tasks;

● primary location(s) of work;

● term of performance;

● skills/expertise required;

● dollar value; and

● contract type (i.e., fixed price, cost reimbursement, etc.)

(USAID recommends that the Offeror alert the contacts that their names have been submitted and that they are authorized to provide performance information concerning the listed contracts if USAID requests it.)

2. If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken (as required by FAR §15.305(a)(2)).

3. Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the technical assistance described in the statement of work.

As per synopsis Section IV above, USAID will not evaluate Past Performance for Phase One.

F. COST/PRICE

As per FAR §15.404-1(a)(1), given that the objective of proposal analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable, the contracting officer must evaluate the reasonableness of the offered prices. Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit or fee in an offeror’s or contractor’s proposal to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism.

For overall evaluation purposes, per FAR 15.304(e)(1), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price factors. USAID will not rate the cost proposal and the relative importance of cost is substantially less than technical factors. Review of the cost proposal will include primarily cost realism, allowability, and reasonableness analyses. While cost is a factor, especially between closely ranked technical proposals, it is expected that the choice of Contractor for this work will be based on technical merit.

Whilst USAID will not evaluate the cost proposal, the Offerors must submit a summary budget for the five-year period of performance. The summary budget must reflect summary cost information for each of the major budget cost element by components for each contract year separately and provide the program total for the entire contract in the last column of the table.

Submission of the Proposed Technical Concept does not require a detailed budget or budget narratives.

Table 5 below summarizes the illustrative distribution of overall Project funding by Objective across the three funding sources.

[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

Table 5. Illustrative Project Funding by Objective and Type of funds.

Objective Budget and Source

Obj. 1 Drinking Water and Multiple Uses Systems

1.1 Drinking water supply

1.2 Multiple uses water systems

1.3 Social norm and behavior change

$15.0M WASH

$1.45M FtF

Obj. 2 Fecal Sludge Management

2.1 Safe management

2.2 Financial sustainability

$1.7M WASH

Obj. 3 Governance for WRM

3.1 Policy and regulations

3.2 Institutional capacity and governance

$ 5.0 M WASH

$150,000 FtF $150,000 Environment/Biodiversity

Obj. 4 Conservation of water-related biodiversity

4.1 Catchment protection

$ 1.15M Environment/Biodiversity

$200,000 WASH

Total Life of Project budget by funding type

$21.9 M WASH

$1.6M FtF $1.3M Environment/Biodiversity

TOTAL LIFE OF PROJECT BUDGET $24.8M

Table 6 below provides USAID’s recommended cost percentage allocation across the three funding sources.

Table 6. USAID’s Recommended Cost Percentage Allocation by Funding Type

Funding Source USAID’s Recommended Cost Percentage

Allocation

WASH/Water Directive 88.3 percent

FtF 6.5 percent

Environment/Biodiversity 5.2 percent

To undertake a meaningful comparison of cost, Offerors shall use the following standard cost elements organized generally as presented below.

Direct Costs

Labor Costs Salary and Wages Consultants Fringe Benefits

Travel & Allowances Travel, Transportation, Per Diem and Miscellaneous (e.g., visas, inoculations, etc.)

Allowances Other Direct Costs

Equipment and Supplies Subcontract Costs (for major subcontracts, ancillary budgets should be provided that include the same cost element, line item and annual breakdowns as required for the prime’s budget, as applicable)

ATTACHMENT 1

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 TITLE OF PROGRAM

The USAID/Nepal Karnali Water Security Activity (KAWAS).

C.2 GOAL

USAID/Nepal KAWAS seeks to create healthy, resilient, and water secure communities at the watershed level through strengthened water and sanitation governance that improves water resource management (including water for more resilient and bio-diverse ecosystems), enhances sustainable access to drinking water, improves agriculture water management, and reduces the fecal pathogen burden in the environment from poorly managed non-sewered sanitation through fecal sludge management.

C.3 INTRODUCTION

C.3.1 BACKGROUND

Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource that is essential to sustain life, development, and the environment. By 2050, at least one in four people is likely to live in a country affected by chronic or recurring shortages of fresh water.3 Water stress due to scarcity, poor water quality, and inadequate sanitation negatively affects food security, public health, and livelihood choices for poor families across the world. An integrated approach is necessary to address these challenges and ensure water security for more resilient societies.

Sustainable development will not be achieved without a water-secure world. The United Nations (UN) Water’s definition of water security encompasses:

(a) Access to safe, sufficient, and affordable water to meet basic needs for drinking, sanitation, and hygiene, to safeguard the health and well-being, and to fulfill basic human rights;

(b) Adequate water supplies available for food and energy production, industry, transport, and tourism;

(c) Populations resilient to water-related hazards including floods, droughts, and pollution; and

(d) Ecosystems preserved and can deliver their services, on which both nature and people rely, including the provision of freshwater.4

Water security also includes elements of good governance, transboundary cooperation, peace and political stability, and financing. Water security can support reductions in poverty and increase living standards such that there is an improved quality of life for all, especially for the most vulnerable— usually women and children—who benefit most from good water governance and the benefits it provides.

3 Please see https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/.

4 Available at http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic/.

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic/

Section C

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

Addressing water security issues will contribute directly or indirectly to all the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).5 KAWAS is designed specifically to support the Government of Nepal (GON) in achieving SDG 6: ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

C.3.2 WATER RESOURCES IN NEPAL

Article 30 of Nepal’s constitution, adopted in 2015, states that ‘Each person shall have the right to live in a healthy and clean environment’, and gives high priority to protection, promotion and proper use of water resources. The constitution cites the importance of people’s participation in conservation, management and use of natural resources, and specifically prioritizes and includes policy provisions for national investment in multi-utility development of water resources. Other policies support development of sustainable and dependable irrigation by managing river systems to prevent and mitigate water-related natural disasters. However, at present, as in other parts of the world, Nepal’s water sector faces challenges in quantity, quality and reliability.

In 2007, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture labelled Nepal as an area of economic water scarcity due to “a lack of investment in water or a lack of human capacity to plan and manage to satisfy the demand for available water.” Since then, many anecdotes and studies have cited reduction in water availability, indicating that Nepal may be starting to experience physical water scarcity, where the available water is not sufficient to meet both human demands and those of ecosystems to function effectively. In one study of 1,115 springs investigated in the Tanahun district, almost two-thirds had reduced flow by an average of 21 percent between 2004 – 2014, and in ten districts of the Far West Region, one quarter of the 693 springs monitored showed a 60 percent average decline in discharge between 2013 – 2016.6 In some cases, people have migrated to other areas because of the water scarcity.

Agricultural activity dominates the use of freshwater in Nepal and globally,7 while the World Bank estimates that over 70 percent of the Nepalese population is engaged in the agriculture and livestock sectors. Agricultural water management is critical.8 There is high demand for irrigation in Nepal, given that most agriculture is rainfed, with only 18 percent of cultivated land being irrigated year-around. Irrigation is a key input to increasing agricultural productivity, but most of the water withdrawn by agriculture is lost in evaporation and transpiration, indicating an urgent need to increase water efficiency. Some of the challenges that affect optimum use of water for productivity include: aging water infrastructure such as pipes, canals, reservoirs, etc; low system efficiency; weak participation and low capacity of Water Users Associations (WUAs); weak institutional capacity;

weak linkages between upstream and downstream; poor agricultural water use efficiency practices;

and subsistence agriculture practices. There has also been increased competition and conflict with other water use sectors thereby diverting water resources from traditional users who are often

5 Please see https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.

6 Nepal’s silent emergency: springs going dry by Ajaya Dixit. https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/nepals-silent-emergency-springs-going-dry/ 7 WRI 2005 World Resources Institute: Freshwater resources 2005.

8 USAID 2015, Agricultural Water Management: Water and Development Strategy Implementation Brief;

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/Ag%20Water%20Management_Implementation%20Brief _Jan%202015.pdf https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/nepals-silent-emergency-springs-going-dry/ https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/nepals-silent-emergency-springs-going-dry/ https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/Ag%20Water%20Management_Implementation%20Brief_Jan%202015.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/Ag%20Water%20Management_Implementation%20Brief_Jan%202015.pdf

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009 peasants, fishers and women. Such increasing deprivation is likely to worsen the inequalities.9 Hence, ensuring water security for productive activities for the most vulnerable could be one of the most effective ways of improving equity and reducing poverty.

Biological contamination is a major issue for spring sources and river bodies in Nepal. The practice of open defecation has been reduced to less than 10 percent of households, however, fecal contamination is reintroduced to the environment as the fecal sludge from septic pits/tanks is disposed of directly into water bodies, forest areas, and flood-prone areas. Rivers have also been chemically polluted by excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and unregulated industrial discharges. In the Terai, groundwater is widely contaminated by arsenic levels in excess of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. In areas where wetlands have been drained and forests are degraded, natural filtration and treatment of biological and chemical contaminants are hindered by lack of vegetation, soil, and associated microorganisms. These areas are prone to soil erosion and sedimentation that further deteriorates water quality.

As climate variability impacts the timing, amount and intensity of precipitation events, it brings additional risks of drought, floods, erosion and landslides, affecting water supply and sanitation, agricultural potential and ecosystem services. Although climate-related changes in river flow are poorly understood, it is estimated that continuation of the 0.06° Celsius/year warming trend will result in a drop in total water availability from the current 176 km3/year to 128 km3/year by 2100, a 27 percent decrease.10 Variable water flow affects hydropower generation, and can lead to damage of water, sewerage, and irrigation structures (both social and physical) at the national and local levels.

Soil erosion on the slopes and silting in the low-lying areas continues to occur, in part due to Nepal’s steep gradient. But the biggest issue is the trend in reduction of ‘useful’ precipitation, which is spread over a long period and can infiltrate the soil, accompanied by an increase in ‘useless’ precipitation, which falls in large quantities over a short time during cloudbursts and runs off, causing erosion and damaging fields and pathways, and not contributing to infiltration.

Groundwater and aquifer recharge are also affected by land use practices. Unfortunately, as much as 28 percent of Nepal’s land is degraded, affecting the ability of the natural resource base to provide vital ecosystem services and causing economic hardship and social inequities. Wetlands, which cover nearly 5 percent (743,500 hectares) of Nepal’s area11, and are important for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem maintenance, are also degraded by hunting, encroachment, and drainage.

C.3.3 WATER AND SANITATION ACCESS

According to the Ministry, 88 percent of households have access to improved sources of drinking water, which includes piped water, public taps, standpipes, tube-wells, boreholes, protected dug-wells, springs, and rainwater. However, functionality is a challenge, with a 2014 study reporting that only 25 percent of water supply systems function properly, while 39 percent require either major repairs, rehabilitation or reconstruction. In terms of water quality, the latest Multiple Indicator

9 Namara RE et al. 2010. Agricultural water management and poverty linkages. Agricultural Water Management 97 (4) (2010), pp. 520 – 527.

10 Chaulagain, NP. 2006. Impacts of climate change on water resources of Nepal: The physical and socioeconomic dimensions. MSc Thesis, University of Flensburg, Germany 11 Please see https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/wetlands-in-nepal-2/.

https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/wetlands-in-nepal-2/

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009

Cluster Survey (MICS) Nepal survey found 71 percent of household drinking water sources (at point of collection) showed presence of an indicator of fecal contamination (Escherichia coli). Eighty-two percent of households had E. coli when water was sampled at the point of use, indicating additional contamination during transport and storage.12 Thus, access to “safely managed drinking water” as per the definition used for the SDG,13 is estimated to be at only 27 percent. Meeting Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) standards requires clean water and proper hygiene standards to prevent food contamination.

A literature review of fecal sludge management suggests that the full non-sewered sanitation chain is best addressed in developing countries through simple technologies.14 Fecal sludge management is a very immature sector but Nepal has at least two examples of dry bed fecal sludge treatment plants (FSTP), with one supporting a small institution and another a town of approximately 57,000. Both display successful technology, but the small size of the former does not lend itself to providing fecal sludge treatment for a small town. The second FSTP is located in a municipality that is receiving technical assistance from USAID’s Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Finance (WASH-Fin) activity to develop standard operating procedures, determine what type of service agreement to use for operations of the FSTP, develop a business plan for the FSTP, and determine what type of service agreement to use for operations of the FSTP.

In decentralized systems, simple technologies are best for collection, transportation, and treatment of fecal sludge. The public sector has an important role in raising demand through guidelines, regulations public education. Revenues from generation of sludge by-products like fuel, building material, or soil amendments in these rural areas may help to offset the costs of operation. Public-private or public-community-nongovernmental organization (NGO) approaches can all be successful for fecal sludge management, with the community and NGOs taking on some roles.

Private operators may be more confident of the possibility of developing self-sustaining revenue streams with populations in the range of 50 – 60,000. However, there are signs that systems for smaller towns (in the range of 20,000 to 45,000) can also be viable, particularly when there is public intervention to support revenue generation with sanitation taxes, linking fecal sludge management with water service fees (justified by water quality impacts of untreated fecal sludge), subsidies or service subscription. Public-private partnerships that include donor support for construction and training and mentoring for initial operations can then graduate to a public-private business model.

Similarly, clustering villages or FSTPs under one operator may allow for economies of scale (depending on the construction and transportation costs).15

12 The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Multi-Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 13 Available at https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/coverage/indicator-6-1-1-safely-managed-drinking-water.pdf.

14 S. Singh et al. Technology options for faecal sludge management in developing countries: Benefits and revenue from reuse. Environmental Technology & Innovation 7 · February 2017. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314126067_Technology_options_for_faecal_sludge_management_in_develo ping_countries_Benefits_and_revenue_from_reuse 15 L Bachelier et al. 2018. Safely managed sanitation services in small towns: an analysis of knowledge and experiences from developing countries. Cranfield University and pS-Eau. Available at https://www.pseau.org/outils/ouvrages/cranfield_university_ps_eau_safely_managed_sanitation_services_in_small_to wns_an_analysis_of_knowledge_and_experiences_from_developing_countries_en_2018.pdf https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/coverage/indicator-6-1-1-safely-managed-drinking-water.pdf https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/coverage/indicator-6-1-1-safely-managed-drinking-water.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/journal/2352-1864_Environmental_Technology_Innovation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314126067_Technology_options_for_faecal_sludge_management_in_developing_countries_Benefits_and_revenue_from_reuse https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314126067_Technology_options_for_faecal_sludge_management_in_developing_countries_Benefits_and_revenue_from_reuse https://www.pseau.org/outils/ouvrages/cranfield_university_ps_eau_safely_managed_sanitation_services_in_small_towns_an_analysis_of_knowledge_and_experiences_from_developing_countries_en_2018.pdf https://www.pseau.org/outils/ouvrages/cranfield_university_ps_eau_safely_managed_sanitation_services_in_small_towns_an_analysis_of_knowledge_and_experiences_from_developing_countries_en_2018.pdf

C.3.4 FEDERALISM

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution provides for three levels of government: national, provincial and local.

There are 7 provinces, 77 districts and 753 local governments (460 village municipalities and 293 urban municipalities), and 6743 wards (the smallest units of government). Wards are units of government closest to the communities.

The constitution has distinguished federal, provincial and local responsibilities for the development and use of water resources. The federal government is responsible for large projects for electricity, irrigation, large-scale drinking water supply, and other projects, policies and criteria related to protection and the multi dimensions of water resource use and on international treaties and agreements. The provincial government is responsible for provincial level electricity, irrigation, drinking water supply services, and transport and management of national forest, water resources and ecology within the province. The local governments are mandated to develop and oversee the management of drinking water services, small electricity projects and conservation of watersheds and wetlands at the local level. There are overlapping and concurrent powers for federal, provincial and local levels with regards to drinking water and other environmental conservation concerns.

Although drinking water and watershed management are under the jurisdiction of local government, water resource management is concurrently a right of federal, provincial and local governments. This creates confusion on the roles for water resource management.

Before federalism, WASH activities were managed at the district level. Now there are 28 divisional drinking water and sanitation offices to serve the 753 new municipalities (urban and rural). Local governments have the right to tax, collect revenue, and allocate budget for construction and oversight of WASH activities. It is proposed that each municipality have one engineer and each ward have an assistant sub-engineer, but it is unclear whether all municipalities yet have this level of technical human resources and whether they will be sufficient to undertake the planning and oversight of all WASH activities that local government may want to undertake. Nepal is urbanizing rapidly, with an estimated 40 percent of the population living in urban areas, and 34 percent of municipalities defined as “urban”. With urbanization, there will be more demand for proper municipal services which includes safely managed water and sanitation services.

C.3.5 POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

There is no institutional framework to address water issues holistically in Nepal. At the national level, there are three ministries that deal with water:

(a) Ministry of Water Supply;

(b) Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation; and

(c) Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration (MoFAGA).

The institutional structure for regulation and implementation of the water related policies and laws is centralized, with coordination units based in ministries, commissions and departments. Attachment 1 lists the main legislative and regulatory documents guiding the water sector in Nepal.

At the national level, a Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS), established in 1981, is responsible for assisting the various sectoral ministries and other agencies engaged with water

Solicitation No. 72036719R00009 resources in the formulation of water and energy resources policies and planning of projects.

However, the role and mandate of WECS is not clear, and there is no legal requirement for sectoral ministries to share their development plans with WECS or integrate their planning with other sectoral ministries. WECS has not been successful in promoting cross-sectoral coordination as envisioned by the National Water Plan of 2005.

Nepal’s Water Resource Act of 1992 outlines arrangements for the rational utilization, conservation, management, and development of water resources. The act also emphasized the formation and registration of Water User Associations (WUAs) to manage water resources for the benefit of their members. The Nepal’s Water Resources Strategy 2003 sets out a comprehensive approach to water planning, covering water supply and sanitation, irrigation, and hydropower as well as a range of institutional, legal, and environmental issues with a long-term vision, and is operationalized by the National Water Plan 2005. Nepal’s 14th development plan for 2017 – 2019 emphasizes Multiple Use Water (MUS) systems for improving irrigation in rural areas while the Local Governance Implementation Act 2074 (2017 AD), stipulates proper management and use of water resources.

Implementation of this framework has been a challenge, particularly in the context of federalism.

There is a gap in inter-provincial and inter-local governmental cooperation for integrated water resource management.