72049724RFI00001_HIV_AIDS Activity in Indonesia_signed.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

RFI NUMBER: 72049724RFI00001

ISSUANCE DATE: December 1, 2023

RESPONSE DUE DATE & TIME: January 5, 2024, at 1:00 PM Jakarta Time

RESPONSE EMAIL ADDRESS: proposals-indonesia@usaid.gov

PROJECT TITLE: HIV/AIDS Activity in Indonesia

The United States Agency for International Development Mission in Indonesia (USAID/Indonesia) is publishing this Request for Information (RFI) to obtain information, recommendation, feedback, and input from all interested entities that have experience implementing HIV/AIDS activity. The goal of this activity is to accelerate the Government of Indonesia’s progress in achieving and sustaining HIV epidemic control by 2030 by optimizing access, quality, and delivery of HIV/AIDS services, particularly for Key Populations.

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information gathering purposes and is published in accordance with FAR Part 10 and FAR Part 15.201(e).

Through this RFI, USAID/Indonesia seeks to enhance the design of the HIV/AIDS Activity in Indonesia. This RFI does not constitute a Request for Applications (RFA) or a Request for Proposals (RFP). Responses to this RFI are not applications or official proposals and will in no way be deemed to form any binding agreement with the RFI issuing authority. Please do not submit applications, proposals, budget, costs, resumes or promotional materials, as they will be discarded. Proprietary information should not be sent. USAID may use any information provided without incurring any obligation. USAID reserves the right to, or not to incorporate any, some, or none of the comments received from this RFI into any subsequent solicitations or design documents.

Any future solicitations or funding opportunities regarding the new HIV/AIDS program will be announced at www.sam.gov or at www.grants.gov at a later date. It is the potential offeror’s responsibility to monitor this site for the release of any synopsis or solicitation.

Responding to this RFI will not provide any advantage to or preclude any firm or organization if USAID issues a subsequent solicitation or funding opportunity. Please note that respondents that provide submissions in response to this RFI will not be notified of the results of the review. USAID/Indonesia will not provide individualized feedback in response to any submitted information. No basis for claims against the U.S. Government shall arise as a result of a response to this RFI or form the Government’s use of such information.

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

U.S. Embassy Jakarta Jl. Medan Merdeka Selatan 3-5 Jakarta 10110, Indonesia USAID.gov

Request for Information (RFI) No. 72949724RFI00001 HIV/AIDS Activity in Indonesia

All responses must be submitted via email to proposals-indonesia@usaid.gov with the subject line: “Response to 72049724RFI00001 – USAID/Indonesia HIV/AIDS Activity”, no later than the date and time shown above.

We appreciate your contribution and look forward to receiving your comments.

Sincerely

Mohib Ahmed Supervisory Contracting Officer Director, Office of Acquisition and Assistance USAID/Indonesia

Attachments:

Attachment I: Draft Concept Note Attachment II: Questions for Industry Feedback Attachment III: Locally Led Program Indicator

Mohib Ahmed

Digitally signed by Mohib Ahmed Date: 2023.11.30 10:06:23 +07'00'

ATTACHMENT I: DRAFT CONCEPT NOTE

I. PURPOSE

USAID intends to provide essential support to accelerate GoI’s progress in achieving and sustaining HIV epidemic control by 2030 by optimizing access, quality, and delivery of HIV/AIDS services, particularly for Key Populations. To achieve this goal, USAID will pursue the three objectives below, which are in line with the U.S President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Strategy: Fulfilling America’s Promise to End the HIV/AIDS Pandemic by 20301 and GoI’s National Strategy and Action Plan for HIV and AIDS Control (2020-2024):

Objective 1: HIV prevention and case finding among priority populations optimized

Objective 2: Care and treatment outcomes for PLHIV improved

Objective 3: Locally-led systems managing, monitoring, and delivering HIV services strengthened

II. BACKGROUND

Indonesia has the third highest estimated number of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) in Asia, behind India and China, yet Indonesia’s antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage of 32% remains the lowest in the region. With approximately 515,455 Indonesians living with HIV/AIDS, 88% (454,723) of infected individuals know their status, but only 45% (202,489) of those known positives are on antiretroviral therapy, and 61,008 are virally suppressed as of August 2023. The fact that over 200,000 PLHIV in Indonesia are not receiving life-saving ART

– and that more than a third of these individuals may not know their HIV status – is particularly alarming considering successful global expansion of HIV testing and treatment coverage in more resource-constrained environments. Java Provinces (including Jakarta) have the highest estimated number of people living with HIV in Indonesia.

The burden of HIV/AIDS is concentrated among four key populations (KPs): sex workers (2.2% prevalence), men who have sex with men (18.2% prevalence), people who inject drugs (15.6% prevalence), and transgender people (12.3% prevalence). Key populations disproportionately serve as both destination and source of a substantial proportion of new HIV infections. An expanding burden of infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains a critical driver of epidemic transmission2.

1 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PEPFAR-Strategic-Direction_FINAL.pdf

2https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7e063690-3338-43ff-9985-24fe7ad1c209/content

III. DRAFT CONCEPT NOTE

The following describes in detail the three objectives and related intermediate results to be achieved over the life of this activity.

Objective 1: HIV prevention and case-finding among priority populations optimized

IR1.1: Integrated, friendly HIV prevention services for priority populations strengthened

As GOI works towards achieving and sustaining treatment saturation, HIV prevention remains critically important and needs to be scaled and optimized, especially for key populations at-risk, where the rate of new infections remains substantial. These groups are often the most vulnerable to acquiring HIV, are disproportionately affected by high rates of intimate partner violence and sexual violence, and face the greatest barriers to accessing services needed to protect themselves. IR1.1 aims to contribute to HIV epidemic control through the prevention of new HIV infections (through PrEP, STI testing, etc). Locally developed, evidence-based, person-centered, and gender transformative approaches for prevention interventions and risk-reduction messages will be considered in partnership with other PEPFAR-funded HIV activities across PEPFAR supported districts.

IR1.2: Differentiated HIV testing services expanded

Case finding is the single most critical step to reaching PEPFAR 95-95-95 goals. The first “95” of the PEPFAR goals is to identify 95% of HIV infected individuals and is the gateway to accessing prevention and treatment services. IR1.2 aims to improve coverage, yield, and efficiency of HIV testing services through a strategic mix of HTS modalities - tailored to local epidemiology. Efficient testing strategies will include proven approaches, such as testing social and sexual networks of people recently diagnosed with HIV infection and optimizing the right mix of facility-based and community-based screening. This strategy has the added benefit of identifying heterosexual women (in addition to sex workers) who are infected by their male PWID and MSM partners.

IR1.3: Prompt linkage of HIV positive individuals to treatment services increased

Indonesia’s treatment guidelines recommend rapid ART initiation, including same-day ART, be offered to all PLHIV following confirmed HIV diagnosis to reduce mortality and loss to care after diagnosis. Optimal linkage to treatment services for identified HIV infected individuals is critical to achieving the second and third “95” goals.

With only 44.7% (29,452) of PLHIV in Jakarta linked and started on treatment, this activity will focus on identifying and addressing barriers and challenges to rapid ART initiation.

Patients once identified as positive are expected to be immediately linked and enrolled into clinical care. This “linkage” step has been a challenge, because not all HIV testing sites offer ART services and so patients will need to travel to a different health facility, often resulting in delays in ART initiation. IR1.3 will create more formalized systems to ensure that individuals, once tested positive, are captured and retained in clinical services.

Objective 2: Care and treatment outcomes for PLHIV improved

IR2.1: Differentiated and simplified person-centered HIV treatment models implemented, evaluated and scaled

Differentiated service delivery (DSD)—a “patient-centered approach that simplifies and adapts HIV services across the cascade to serve the needs of PLHIV better and reduce unnecessary burdens on the health system”— has emerged as a core tenet of HIV programs in resource-limited settings3. DSD is operationalized by adjusting the frequency of visits, the location of service delivery, the cadre of health care workers, and the package of services according to the needs of different groups of PLHIV. Varying the configuration of these factors results in DSD treatment models that often separate clinical visits from antiretroviral therapy (ART) refills 4. With 95,000 PLHIV in Jakarta and Greater Jakarta still needing lifelong ART, NAP should adopt and adapt existing models of differentiated care to meet both the diverse needs of PLHIV and the capacity and constraints of their health systems. IR2.1 will promote simplified service delivery models that promote decentralized and community-based options to PLHIV - such as telemedicine and Multi Month Dispensing (MMD). This will entail working with beneficiaries of care to regularly review where and how they wish to receive care and tailoring adherence support and drug delivery accordingly and working with other stakeholders - including NAP - to collectively problem solve.

IR2.2: Retention in care, and return to care increased

Ensuring treatment adherence and retention for PLHIV is critical for the ultimate attainment of viral load suppression and reduced incidence of HIV disease. Treatment interruption and lack of access to MMD remains as the top barriers to viral suppression and healthy outcomes. IR2.2 will strengthen clinical services and promote interventions to remove barriers to superior treatment regimens, increase access to MMD, mitigate treatment interruption, and expand options for PLHIV to receive treatment and other support services that facilitate ART retention.

IR2.3: VL suppression rates for all subgroups improved

While HIV epidemic control is reached when the total number of new HIV infections falls below the total number of deaths from all causes among PLHIV, the ultimate goal is to achieve population-based viral suppression among HIV-infected clients and to prevent further transmission of the virus. To achieve this, it is necessary to achieve and monitor the attainment of viral load suppression. This requires intensified targeting of services for those who are not yet virally suppressed and/or at risk of disengagement in care. To address these

3 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/COP20-Guidance_Final-1-15-2020.pdf

4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136137/ challenges IR2.3 will ensure that the majority of PLHIV are eligible for 3-6 MMD, expand viral load testing coverage, and ensure that viral load information is used in clinical decision making with patients receiving and understanding their results.

Objective 3: Locally-led systems managing, monitoring, and delivering HIV services strengthened

IR3.1: Effective governance and management systems at the province, district, and facility levels (management, planning, budgeting and monitoring systems) are in place

Sustained epidemic control requires that functions required to manage a national HIV program, such as planning, financing, and human resources, are led and managed locally, and integrated within strong, capacitated country health systems. Specifically, Indonesia’s decentralized health care system requires us to work closely with the sub-national health units to ensure they have sufficient authority and capacity to plan for, manage, and monitor health service delivery. Therefore, it is essential to both strengthen system functions (governance, human resources, finance, and information systems), and improve management of those functions to solve complex problems that hamper service delivery5. IR3.1 aims to develop, support, and sustain the institutional capabilities of GoI at the sub-national level through technical assistance approaches that include coaching and mentoring to strengthen and sustain commitment and capacity of PHO, DHO, and healthcare providers to plan and advocate for prioritization of HIV services in the annual planning process and mobilization of domestic resources by taking into consideration the decentralization context.

IR3.2: Capacity of PLHIV and community led local organizations to manage and implement HIV programs is strengthened

Locally led development and delivery of HIV services through resilient local partners, civil society organizations (CSOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs) can improve the quality of program approaches that depend on interaction with local systems and can lead to a greater likelihood of sustainability, as interventions are owned by local institutions. IR 3.2 aims to strengthen the organizational and technical capacity of local actors with the goal of strengthening local organization’s skills in planning, resource mobilization, management of large donor-funded programs, and their strategic development. Despite the progress made to include local NGOs in the implementation of donor supported HIV-supported programs in Indonesia, the vast majority are small and lack the skills, experience, and platforms required for leading and managing large programs.

IR3.3: Capacity for collection, collation, analysis, and use of data for decision making at the national, provincial, and district strengthened

5 USAID’S APPROACH TO HIV AND OPTIMIZED PROGRAMMING (AHOP) 2022

In the health sector response to the HIV epidemic, collection, analysis and use of data are crucial at every level, from patient care and monitoring through program management and national program monitoring. Programmatic reviews using the latest available data is essential for decision making, adaptive management and continuous quality improvement of the HIV Program and should be included as a core function of program managers at every level, from individual facilities to the national level. Such reviews focus on the HIV services cascade; gaps identified here reflect programme performance issues that managers can act on in a timely manner 6. IR3.3 aims to build the capacity and supportive culture for program managers at all levels to support the collection, analysis, and use of quality data for decision making and programming. It will also support regular data reviews for early detection of anomalies and incorrect results and intervene in a timely manner in conjunction with all key stakeholders at all levels.

IR3.4: Deployment and utilization of an integrated IT platform for prioritized health programs accelerated

The Government of Indonesia is currently undergoing a digital health transformation system by 2024. The country has been focusing their great effort in the development of applications, information systems, and platforms for management of various diseases including HIV. To achieve this goal, standardizing systems to be interoperable and allow for data integration is critical for long term management of the diseases. However, ensuring the accessibility and availability of real time quality data that can be analyzed effectively to make policy and program management decisions and monitor program implementation, remains a challenge. These challenges result from several issues including, lack of coordination between stakeholders, lack of system functionality and data analytics capacity, data exchange limitations, and delays in data entry. IR 3.4 will support the GoI and relevant stakeholders to enhance Sistem Informasi HIV/AIDS (SIHA) and other HIV-related information systems by integrating them with MoH’s latest health information platform

(SATU SEHAT).

6 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/consolidated-hiv-strategic-information-guidelines-executive-summary

ATTACHMENT II: QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY FEEDBACK

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

USAID/Indonesia seeks to collect feedback on the following questions in relation to the Draft Concept Note (Attachment I). When preparing your response to the following questions, please ensure comments are concise and specific to the question asked.

A. Response format:

1. Cover page: not to exceed one (1) page, that includes

a. Organization name and address, including point of contact name and contact information;

b. Organization type (e.g., non-governmental organization, social enterprise, civil society organization, U.S. small business, local organization);

c. Unique Entity Identifier (if applicable);

d. Has the organization worked with or supported Indonesia’s Ministry of Health

(MoH)? If yes, in what capacity? Please list/describe any challenges.

e. Please briefly describe your technical expertise in working in health or specifically HIV/AIDS programs.

2. Questions and comments on the Draft Concept Note: Not to exceed three (3) pages

Please review the draft Concept Note (Attachment I) and provide your response to the following questions. Please keep in mind that the activity will focus on accelerating the Government of Indonesia’s progress in achieving and sustaining HIV epidemic control by 2030 by optimizing access, quality, and delivery of HIV/AIDS services, particularly for Key Populations.

1. How would you prioritize the three proposed activity objectives? Please assign a weight for each objective ranging from 0-100% and describe your reasoning for assigning these weights. In addition, please indicate which of these areas are already receiving sufficient or considerable support.

2. What is missing from the draft concept note that needs to be addressed to accelerate progress in achieving and sustaining HIV epidemic control in Indonesia?

3. How can this activity promote the long-term sustainability of the Government of Indonesia’s HIV/AIDS response, as they assume greater responsibility for controlling the HIV/AIDS epidemic?

4. How would you prioritize the key systems barriers/challenges (in Objective 3) that should be addressed in order to make the most impact in accelerating Indonesia's progress in reaching 95-95-95? Please provide rationale on the prioritization.

5. Which specific areas (or activities) described in the concept note do you think the Government of Indonesia would be best positioned to take complete ownership at the end of the project?

6. Are there any opportunities or anticipated challenges in achieving these goals?

7. Please share any other comments or inputs you may have on the draft concept note.

Additional Questions only for International Organizations

8. What is the feasibility of achieving the following good practices included in USAID’s locally led Programs indicator in a future activity as described in the draft concept note.

a. Using Demand Driven Capacity Strengthening Approaches (Good Practice#5)

b. Making local subawards and subcontracts (Good Practice #8)

c. Complying with Transition award process (Good Practice #9)

B. Submission Instructions:

Please send responses to this RFI via email to the address listed on the cover page by the closing date listed. Please keep your responses to no more than four (4) pages in length, 12 pt, Calibri font.

USAID values concise, issue-specific comments. Any pages beyond the four requested may not be reviewed. Responses must be submitted in English. Please number each page consecutively and please relate your responses to each question included in this RFI.

Please be reminded that you will only receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response. No feedback or debrief will be provided on comments received.

Phone calls or hard copy responses will not be accepted.

Locally Led Programs Indicator October 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Overview B. Background C. Locally Led Programs Indicator Annex 1. Definition Sheets for Each of the 14 Good Practices

A. OVERVIEW

This document provides the methodology for the Locally Led Programs indicator, a key metric on localization, to monitor the Agency’s progress in shifting leadership to local actors during priority setting, design, implementation, and measuring results of Agency programming.

B. BACKGROUND

In her November 2021 speech, “A New Vision for Development,” Administrator Power reiterated USAID’s commitment to working more closely with local development actors by setting the goal that “by the end of the decade, 50 percent of our programming, at least half of every dollar we spend, will need to place local communities in the lead to either co-design a project, set priorities, drive implementation, or evaluate the impact of our programs.” To assess progress towards that target, USAID developed the Locally Led Programs indicator, informed by consultations with a range of stakeholders from more than 300 organizations across 48 countries, and spanning all sectors and geographic regions in which USAID works.

C. LOCALLY LED PROGRAMS INDICATOR

Definition: The Locally Led Programs indicator measures, in a given fiscal year, the percentage of USAID-funded activities in which local partners and/or local communities lead development efforts, including priority setting, design, partnership formation, implementation, and defining and measuring results.

Specifically, the Locally Led Programs indicator measures the percentage of USAID-funded development and humanitarian activities that are both active at any point in the fiscal year of reporting and demonstrate the use of at least two (2) good practice(s) in at least two (2) categories of good practices for local leadership in a given fiscal year.

A good practice for local leadership is one of a set of actions that may be taken by USAID and its implementing partners during priority setting, design, implementation, or monitoring and evaluation processes to advance one or more of the four categories listed in Table 1 below.

ADS 201 defines an activity as an implementing mechanism that carries out an intervention or set of interventions to advance identified development or humanitarian result(s). Activities include contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with international or local organizations; direct agreements with partner governments, other USG agencies, or public international organizations; and partial credit guarantees that mobilize private capital, among other examples. Activities also include buy-ins under global awards (e.g., Field Support mechanisms) that generate programmatic results in a given country or region. For the purposes of this indicator, all activities count regardless of the type of implementing partner.

For the purposes of this indicator, Operating Expenses (OE) are not considered activities. This may include MEL Platforms, Personal Service Contracts, and other mission support contracts. See Table 1 below for further explanation of what counts under this indicator.

Table 1. Examples of Different Types of Mechanisms and Reporting Considerations

Type of Activity Considerations for Reporting

Acquisition and Assistance Instruments with a single activity (Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, Grants)

Any Acquisition or Assistance activity regardless of implementing partner type should be considered so long as the activity carries out an intervention or set of interventions to advance identified development or humanitarian results.

Acquisition and Assistance Instruments with multiple activities (IDIQs, LWAs, etc.)

If the primary award - leader, IQC, BPA includes implementation of an intervention or set of interventions to advance identified development or humanitarian result(s), then the primary award may be considered as an individual activity under this indicator.

Any additional awards associated with the primary award—Task Orders (TOs), Associate Awards, Purchase Orders, etc.—which carry out an intervention or set of interventions to advance identified development or humanitarian results should be considered as individual activities under this indicator.

Subawards Subawards are not considered unique activities under this indicator. The prime award is the unit of reporting for this indicator. If a good practice is being implemented within a subaward, it is the prime award that should be counted as having used the practice.

Support Mechanisms When support provided to an activity through a Support Mechanism such as MEL Platforms, Regional MEL Activities, Operational Support Activities, etc. results in the activity meeting the criteria for one or more of the good practices, the activity receiving the support should receive credit for the good practice, not the OE-funded award through which the support was delivered.

Data Type: Percentage

Data Source: Data on the Locally Led Programs indicator is generated from two types of data sources:

1) information in corporate systems, such USAID’s Global Acquisition and Assistance System

(GLAAS); or

2) information provided directly by USAID Operating Units (OUs).

More detail is provided in the good practice guidance listed below.

Method of Indicator Construction

● Numerator: Total number of USAID-funded development and humanitarian activities that are both active at any point in the fiscal year of reporting and demonstrate the use of at least two (2) good practice(s) in at least two (2) categories of good practices for local leadership in a given fiscal year.

● Denominator: Total number of USAID-funded development and humanitarian activities active at any point in the fiscal year of reporting.

As noted above, Operating Expenses (OE) are not considered activities and would not be included in the denominator.

Table 2. Categories of Good Practices for Local Leadership and the Good Practices Themselves

Category Practice Definitions and Criteria

Direct Local Funding 1. Partnering directly with local or regional partners Link

Creating Effective Local Partnerships

2. Co-creating with local or regional partners Link

3. Making descriptive, not prescriptive awards to local and/or regional partners

Link

4. Helping local and regional partners achieve full cost recovery Link

Recognizing, and Investing in Local Capacity

5. Using demand driven capacity strengthening approaches Link

6. Advancing local and regional actors’ readiness to work directly with USAID Link

7. Measuring programmatic success using locally defined measures Link

8. Making local subawards and subcontracts Link

9. Including the transition award process in prime assistance awards Link

10. Conducting evaluations with local evaluation experts Link

Engaging Communities Directly

11. Conducting listening tours to inform activity design Link

12. Co-creating with stakeholders, including local communities Link

13. Institutionalizing feedback and accountability with local communities Link

14. Implementing participatory monitoring, evaluation and learning Link

Indicator Disaggregation: Indicator will be disaggregated by Operating Unit (OU) (i.e., Washington Bureaus

v. Missions/Field OUs), Standardized Program Structure and Definitions (SPSD) area, and by good practice.

Method of Data Collection and Construction: Data collection and construction for the indicator will be led by USAID/Washington Bureau for Planning, Learning and Resource Management (PLR) on an annual basis during the first quarter of each fiscal year. Data collection will be an agency-wide reporting exercise in which OUs submit data according to guidance provided by USAID/Washington prior to the launch of the agency-wide data collection exercise. USAID/Washington will use data submitted by OUs to construct the indicator.

For FY23, the first year of data collection, the Agency will report on a subset of activities instead of the complete Agency portfolio to support learning and adaptation before full institutionalization.

Table 3. Details of the Locally Led Programs Indicator Data Collection Plan and Process

Managing OU PLR will oversee the rollout and data collection for the Locally Led Programs Indicator. Regional and Pillar Bureaus will contribute data on the relevant activities in their OYB.

Timeline Data collection for the indicator will occur during the first quarter of 2024.

Participating OUs

All OUs are required to report on all relevant activities, as described in the PIRS, active in the reporting year PIRS.

*NOTE: For 2023, PLR will lead a focused data-call with a limited number of OUs. PLR, in coordination with relevant Bureaus, will select Missions/OUs to report.

Data Collection Process

● Annual Reporting Launch. PLR will conduct an Agency-wide Reporting Launch in October, providing an overview of the indicator, data collection process, data collection tools, and timeline.

● Reporting Support. PLR will conduct training, establish weekly office hours, and provide additional support sessions at the request of OUs.

● Data Collection. OUs will complete data collection following user-guides, and using templates provided by PLR and submit to PLR through a Google form between October 1 and December 1, 2023.

● Data Review and Finalization. PLR will review data submitted by OUs and work with OUs to resolve any data issues prior to using data for analysis.

Data Quality Assessment

PLR will conduct a Data Quality Assessment (DQA) of the indicator in accordance with ADS 201 requirements. PLR will provide detailed description and guidance on the DQA process as part of Annual Reporting Launch.

Each reporting Mission/OU will assign a POC to manage data collection and reporting across all activities.

AOR/COR/Activity Managers will manage data collection for their corresponding activity(ies), with support from corresponding technical offices as identified in each good practice guidance sheet.

Known Data Limitations: Data for several local leadership good practices is generated through an assessment made by individuals in OUs knowledgeable of the activity. This methodology was selected in recognition of the great diversity and nuance in how an activity team uses practices to advance local leadership, avoiding a one-size fits all approach. To ensure confidence in data produced through this indicator, the following actions will be taken:

● PLR will conduct webinars, trainings, and other information sessions;

● PLR, supported by central bureaus, will provide direct technical assistance to teams during annual indicator data collection; and

● PLR will conduct DQAs in accordance with ADS201 policy requirements.

ANNEX 1. DEFINITION SHEETS FOR EACH OF THE 14 GOOD PRACTICES

1. Partnering Directly with Local or Regional Partners

Key Definitions

For the purposes of the Locally Led Programs indicator:

The good practice of Partnering Directly with Local or Regional Partners is defined as when an OU makes an award directly to a local or regional partner.

An award refers to a contract, cooperative agreement, or grant.

A local partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of the same country where it is providing USAID assistance; and

3) has its principal place of business or operations in the same country where it is providing USAID assistance.

A regional partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, government entity, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of, and has as its principal place of business in a country which is part of the same region as a country(ies) it is providing assistance; and

3) is providing assistance in one or more countries in the same region where it is legally organized and has its principal place of business.

A local or regional partner may also be a partner country government entity engaged through a Partner Government implementing mechanism (government-to-government assistance, or G2G) as defined in ADS 220.3.5, using the Expanded Object Class Code (EOCC) 4100510 for FARA and CR Agreements and EOCC Code 4100700 for Sector Program Assistance and General Budget Support or Balance of Payments/Cash.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

To be counted under this practice, ALL of the following inclusion criteria must be met:

● Prime awardee is a local or regional partner.

● The award is directly between USAID and the local or regional partner.

Activities which meet ONE OR MORE of the criteria below should not be counted under this practice:

● The prime is not a local or regional partner.

● The award is an inter-agency agreement.

● The award is a Personal Services Contract.

Information Sources

● Office of the AO/CO

● Award Document

● SAMs Registration System

● GLAAS

Estimated Time Required

5 min

Resources

● Direct Local Funding PIRs

● Direct Local Funding Guidance

2. Co-creating with Local or Regional Partners

Key Definitions

For the purposes of the Locally Led Programs indicator:

The practice of Co-creating with local or regional partners is when USAID engages local or regional partners to jointly produce a mutually-valued outcome. It is transparent, time-limited, and organized. It can be used to address a specific problem, challenge, question, or to gain further insight on a topic of interest. Co-creation focuses on generating a specific outcome.

Co-creation, as defined in alignment with USAID/M/OAA/PDT, as an intentional design approach to foster innovative approaches to address a specific problem, challenge, question, or to gain further insight on a topic of interest through a participatory process whereby participants share power and decision-making. Co-creation can occur at any point in the program cycle.

One of co-creation’s defining characteristics is power-sharing. However, sharing power may involve a spectrum of approaches. USAID may act as convenor, facilitator, one of the key resource stakeholders, simply an observer, or all four. Co-creation recognizes that having resources to bring to bear on a problem does not mean that our perspective on it carries any particular weight. In any co-creation, USAID will always have a role but recognize that the focus of this approach is not on USAID. The nature of USAID’s role should be determined in accordance with the circumstances, the partners, and the problem, recognizing co-creation’s focus on adding voices to the challenge of solving a problem.

For the purpose of this Indicator, Co-creating with Local or Regional Partners is distinct from the good practice Co-creating with Communities in that the participants of the co-creation process are or will be local or regional partners, not the local communities directly affected by the programming.

A local partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, or another body of persons, including representatives of a government agency, that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of the same country where it is providing USAID assistance, and

3) has its principal place of business or operations in the same country where it is providing USAID assistance.

A regional partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, government entity, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of, and has as its principal place of business in a country which is part of the same region as a country(ies) it is providing assistance ; and

3) is providing assistance in one or more countries in the same region where it is legally organized and has its principal place of business:

A local or regional partner may also be a partner country government entity engaged through a Partner Government implementing mechanism (government-to-government assistance, or G2G) as defined in ADS 220.3.5, using the Expanded Object Class Code (EOCC) 4100510 for FARA and CR Agreements and EOCC Code 4100700 for Sector Program Assistance and General Budget Support or Balance of Payments/Cash.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

To be counted under this practice, the following inclusion criteria must be met:

● The activity must, or explicitly plans to have engaged local or regional partners in co-creation of outcomes, approaches, and/or interventions which became reflected in activity design or implementation.

● The co-creation process must have incorporated a participatory method with local or regional partners that went beyond ‘consultative’ as described in the LLD Spectrum.

● There is evidence that participants shared power and decision-making in the co-creation process, such as demonstrated through planned co-creation activities shown in the agenda and project reporting.

● The co-creation process generated outcomes, approaches, or interventions reflected in activity design, and/or activity implementation, such as:

○ Outcomes and Interventions Defined in the Award

○ Indicators, targets, and Monitoring

Approaches defined in the MEL Plan

Activities which meet one or more of the criteria below should not be counted under this practice:

● The co-creation process implemented did not use participatory approaches, or used participatory approaches where local or regional partners did not have the ability to listen, understand, and share with one another.

● The co-creation process implemented processes that were by-and-large consultative, as described in the LLD Spectrum.

● The co-creation process did not facilitate shared power and/or decision making in the process

Information Sources

● Progress reports

● Co-creation event / process SOW, facilitation guide, report, or other documentation that describes the co-creation process and outcomes

Estimated Time Required

5–20 minutes

Resources

● M/OAA/PDT CO-Creation and Co-Design Definitions

● Interactive Co-creation Toolkit

● M/OAA/PDT Website

3. Making Descriptive, Not Prescriptive Awards to Local or Regional Partners

Key Definitions

For the purposes of the Locally Led Programs indicator:

The practice of Making Descriptive, Not Prescriptive Awards to Local and Regional Partners, is when an OU designs and oversees an award that is descriptive of desired outcomes, but not prescriptive of the interventions and management. The award allows local and regional partners to take the lead in proposing, implementing, adapting, monitoring, and evaluating locally generated solutions, and in implementation, continuing to have the ability to propose, plan, and perform (e.g., meet contract objectives or deliver programming, respectively) in accordance with award requirements.

Annual Program Statement (APS) is a type of notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) that is published annually and outlines global, regional, or country-specific funding priorities, strategic themes, development outcomes, and eligibility and application procedures for submitting a request for assistance funding. An APS, like any well-structured NOFO, allows the Agency to solicit funding for a wide range of programming, with a rolling deadline for applications, and for the Agency to make multiple awards.

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is a type of funding announcement that may allow for co-creation methods to solicit and develop proposals for research and development (R&D); resulting R&D awards can be contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants. Instead of providing a specific SOW, a BAA presents a problem statement or challenge and solicits innovative solutions.

Co-creation is defined as an intentional, time-bound approach–that can be pursued at any point in the Program Cycle–that centers on shared power and decision-making related to priority-setting, activity design, and ownership, and typically involves Agency staff, implementing partners, program participants, and/or local communities in a collaborative design process.

Performance Work Statement (PWS) is a contractor-prepared section of a proposal, typically in response to a Statement of Objectives (SOO), that outlines how the contractor will achieve and measure performance against high-level contract objectives. It reflects a performance-based approach that links proposed activities to measurable outcomes in lieu of requiring contractors to respond to more prescriptive, traditional SOWs.

Statement of Objectives (SOO) is an Agency prepared section of a solicitation that provides the high-level objectives of a contract opportunity. It allows for contractors to propose their own solutions and performance metrics to satisfy contract objectives, opening up the acquisition to a wider range of potential solutions than a more prescriptive, traditional SOW.

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a plan for assessing contractor performance. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the PWS.

A local partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of the same country where it is providing USAID assistance; and

3) has its principal place of business or operations in the same country where it is providing USAID assistance.

A regional partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, government entity, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of, and has as its principal place of business in a country which is part of the same region as a country(ies) it is providing assistance; and

3) is providing assistance in one or more countries in the same region where it is legally organized and has its principal place of business.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

To be counted under this practice, ALL of the following inclusion criteria must be met (as applicable to the legal instrument):

Acquisition

● The award is to a local or regional partner.

● The solicitation (e.g., BAA, RFP, RFQ) outlines the Agency’s desired performance objectives and strategic themes or priorities, if applicable, but permits the offeror(s) to propose their own solutions and approach to achieving results coupled with clear performance metrics.

● The evaluation and award decision criteria focuses on the degree to which the proposal was innovative, implementable, and likely to meet contract objectives (vs. aligning with Agency prescribed approaches or activities).

● During implementation, the contractor continues to have the ability to propose, plan, and perform (e.g., meet contract objectives or deliver programming, respectively) in accordance with its award requirements.

● USAID supports the contractor in successful performance of its locally-driven award by engaging in accordance with, but not beyond, the award requirements.

Assistance

● The award is to a local or regional partner;

● The NOFO (e.g., APS, BAA, or RFA) outlines the

Agency’s desired development outcomes and/or its strategic themes or funding priorities but allows the local applicant(s) to propose their own activities, solutions, and programming approaches;

● During implementation, the recipient continues to have the ability to propose, plan, and perform (e.g., meet contract objectives or deliver programming, respectively) in accordance with its award requirements;

● The evaluation and award decision criteria focuses on the degree to which the application(s) was innovative, implementable, and likely to achieve impact (vs. aligning with Agency prescribed approaches or activities);

● USAID supports the recipient in successful performance of its locally-driven award by

Activities which meet ONE OR MORE of the criteria below should not be counted under this practice:

● The contractor or recipient is a non-local partner.

● The solicitation/NOFO and subsequent award requirements are highly prescriptive of required activities or approaches not proposed by the offeror/applicant.

● During implementation:

○ USAID limits the contractor or recipient’s ability to propose, plan, and perform in accordance with its award requirements;

OR

○ USAID requires engagement with or provides direction in excess of what was agreed to and captured in the award.

Examples

● The Agency puts out a solicitation that prescribes activities and requires applicants to describe in the application how they will perform such activities.

● During the performance of a fixed amount award (issued as a grant, not as a cooperative agreement), Agency staff have substantial involvement in and influence decision-making related to work planning.

engaging in accordance with, but not beyond, the award requirements.

Examples

● Use of an SOO descriptive of high-level objectives in lieu of a traditional SOW that outlines the technical components and/or prescribed activities.

● Use of a PWS to define an activity in terms of results/outcomes that USG can monitor and evaluate progress using a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

● Use of an APS to make multiple awards, on a rolling basis, to a variety of organizations with programming that varies in size, scope, and duration but collectively supports a key development priority per the CDCS.

● Use of a BAA to engage a broad range of stakeholders when targeted R&D is desirable but specific, discrete deliverables or development outcomes are hard to define.

Additional Guidance to OUs/Missions in Assessing this Practice

There are multiple ways to structure acquisitions so that they support locally led development and encourage innovative and impactful development. Taking a step back and focusing on the highest-level objectives for a procurement, then selecting a solicitation and proposal format that allows for local offerors to use their in-depth knowledge and expertise to generate effective solutions is likely to be more effective than assuming USAID “knows better.” Consider whether using an SOO and soliciting a PWS can yield higher quality proposals and result in more cost-effective achievement of development goals than a traditional RFP.

Below are some guiding questions for the AOR/COR to consider when assessing this practice.

● Does the solicitation make it clear that offerors/applicants should propose their own approaches and solutions?

● Does the award include descriptions of outcomes and results, but not interventions?

● Does the award include language that indicates contractors/recipients have the authority to identify, propose, implement, monitor, and evaluate their own locally led solutions?

● To what extent has the contractor/recipient been enabled to implement interventions and use approaches which they propose?

If there’s evidence that the award itself, and the oversight of the award by USAID CO/AO and COR/AOR has enabled the contractor/recipient to propose, implement, adapt, monitor and evaluate locally generated solutions, then the activity can qualify for having used the practice.

Information Sources

● OAA, CO/AO

● Activity Solicitation

● Activity Proposal/Application

● Award

Estimated Time Required

30 minutes

Resources

● Furthering Localization through Instrument Selection

4. Helping Local or Regional Partners Achieve Full Cost Recovery

Key Definitions

For the purposes of the Locally Led Programs indicator:

The practice of Helping Local or Regional Partners Achieve Full Cost Recovery is when USAID works with a local or regional partner during the pre-award process to ensure full cost recovery is reflected in a direct award to a local or regional partner (regardless of instrument).

A local partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of the same country where it is providing USAID assistance; and

3) has its principal place of business or operations in the same country where it is providing USAID assistance.

A regional partner is defined as an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, government entity, or another body of persons that:

1) is in an acquisition or assistance partnership with USAID;

2) is legally organized under the laws of, and has as its principal place of business in a country which is part of the same region as a country(ies) it is providing assistance; and

3) is providing assistance in one or more countries in the same region where it is legally organized and has its principal place of business.

A local or regional partner may also be a partner country government entity engaged through a Partner Government implementing mechanism (government-to-government assistance, or G2G) as defined in ADS 220.3.5, using the Expanded Object Class Code (EOCC) 4100510 for FARA and CR Agreements and EOCC Code 4100700 for Sector Program Assistance and General Budget Support or Balance of Payments/Cash.

Final proposal/application budget means the final detailed budget and supporting documentation agreed upon between the CO/AO and the local partner referenced in the signed contract, cooperative agreement, or grant.

Full cost recovery means a local partner (contractor or recipient) is able to recover all allowable costs associated with delivering on a contract or implementing a program funded by USAID.