RFI HSS Flagship in Indonesia_signed.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

RFI NUMBER: 72049724RFI00002

ISSUANCE DATE: January 10, 2024

RESPONSE DUE DATE & TIME: January 30, 2024, at 1:00 PM Jakarta Time

RESPONSE EMAIL ADDRESS: proposals-indonesia@usaid.gov

PROJECT TITLE: Health System Strengthening (HSS) Flagship Activity in Indonesia

The United States Agency for International Development Mission in Indonesia (USAID/Indonesia) posts this Request for Information (RFI) to inform interested parties of an upcoming health system strengthening (HSS) activity designed to improve accountability, health system performance and health outcomes (especially for Maternal and Child Health, Tuberculosis, HIV, and Global Health Security) based on performance-based and sustainable health financing, a strengthened health information system, resilient human resources for health, integrated care models, and a strong evidence to policy pathway.

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 HSS Flagship Activity in Indonesia. This RFI seeks information from capable organizations (i.e., nongovernmental organizations, universities, consortium, for-profit, and local organizations) that are implementing or have implemented HSS projects that spans more than one health system building block and may be interested to partner with USAID in achieving the goals of this future HSS activity. All capable organizations are encouraged to respond.

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.

U.S. AG1ENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

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

Request for Information (RFI) No. 72049724RFI00002

Health System Strengthening (HSS) Flagship Activity in Indonesia

Any future solicitations or funding opportunities regarding the new HSS Flagship Activity 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.

All responses must be submitted via email to proposals-indonesia@usaid.gov, with the subject line: "Response to 72049724RFI00002 - USAID/Indonesia HSS Flagship Activity in Indonesia", 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 and Agreements Officer USAID/Indonesia

Attachments:

Attachment I: Questions for Response Attachment II: Draft Activity Description Attachment III: Locally Led Program Indicator http://www.sam.gov http://www.grants.gov mailto:proposals-indonesia@usaid.gov

ATTACHMENT I: QUESTIONS FOR RESPONSE

SECTION I: RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

USAID/Indonesia seeks to collect feedback from all stakeholders and interested parties, including but not limited to public and private health service providers, industry associations, faith-based organizations, private corporations, academia, non-governmental organizations (both international and local), and community and civil society groups, on the following questions in relation to the Activity Description (Attachment II).

When preparing your response, 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 );1

c. Unique Entity Identifier (if applicable);

d. Please briefly describe your technical expertise in working in health or specifically health system strengthening programs.

2. Questions and comments on the Draft Activity Description:

Please consider that the activity will focus on improving accountability, health system performance, and health outcomes.

1. For each of the problem statements listed, what are the recommended approaches and innovative interventions / solutions for addressing the challenges identified in the problem statement that USAID should test or support to address the challenges? Please provide a justification for how this innovation can result in affordable, accessible, reliable, accountable health system performance, that leads to better coverage, equity and quality of interventions to improve health outcomes.

2. How would you prioritize the proposed Health System Strengthening (HSS) objectives and explain your implementation approach at national and subnational level? Please assign a weight for each objective ranging from 0- 100% and describe your reasoning for assigning these weights.

3. Are there any priorities missing from the activity description that needs to be addressed to deliver on the theory of change? Please consider

1 USAID defines a “local entity” as an individual, corporation, a nonprofit organization, or another body of persons that: (1). Is legally organized under the laws of; and (2).

Has as its principal place of business or operations in; and (3) Is majority owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of; and (4) Is managed by a governing body of the majority of who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the country receiving assistance.

that USAID is providing technical assistance through various other projects in the health sector.

4. How can USAID better work with international, national, and/or subnational stakeholders to consider 1) the engagement and role of the private sector2, 2) gender equality and social inclusion3, and 3) US- Indonesia higher education partnerships in strengthening health system 4? Please elaborate on which stakeholders should be engaged.

5. Do you have any recommendations for reasonable instruments (cooperative agreement or contract) to implement the anticipated Activity? Please explain why.

Additional Question only for International Organizations

6. What are the feasibility and expected challenges in following good practices included in USAID’s locally-led Programs indicator in a future activity as described in this RFI?

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

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

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

iv. Please share your plan to build the capacity of local organizations.

B. Submission Instructions:

Comments and responses to the above questions on the draft Activity Description (Attachment II) must not exceed four (4) pages. The additional questions can be added as an annex (no more than 1 page) to your response. Please keep your responses to no more than five (5) pages, including annex, in Calibri font, 12 pt.

USAID values concise, issue-specific comments. Any pages beyond the five requested pages 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 Section I of 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.

2 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/usaid_psepolicy_final.pdf

3 https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XH9W.pdf

4 https://www.edu-links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/Higher%20Education%20Framework_Oct%202020.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Locally%20Led%20Programs%20Indicator%20%28EXTERNAL%29_1.pdf

ATTACHMENT II: DRAFT ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Indonesia faces significant health challenges, with high rates of Tuberculosis (TB), maternal and neonatal mortality, and a rising number of people living with HIV. To address this burden, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) is undertaking a comprehensive health system transformation, focusing on several areas including health financing, information systems, and healthcare workforce improvement. USAID is collaborating with the Indonesian government to create an equitable and responsive health system that optimizes resources and enhances population health outcomes.

The HSS Flagship project aims to integrate various information systems, address barriers to healthcare access, influence policies through research and evidence, improve the digital healthcare ecosystem, enhance health financing performance, and strengthen overall healthcare service delivery. This transformation aligns with USAID's health priorities and will improve the policy landscape for better health outcomes.

II. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Health Financing:

Although the National Health Insurance (JKN) program has covered more than 95% of the Indonesian population, the majority of public financing for health in Indonesia still flows through other channels. The 2023 Omnibus Health Law introduced performance-based budgeting for these budget channels, which offers opportunities to link financing and performance. However, models for implementing this approach do not yet exist. In addition, multiple health funding streams in Indonesia have created complexities for health planning and expenditure tracking at the district and facility level, which will need to be overcome to realize the promise of performance-based budgeting.

Health Information systems: Indonesia’s health digital transformation has progressed, but the implementation of interoperability and other reforms remain incomplete, and further cross-ministry coordination is needed to enable nationwide adoption. As data pooling improves, the next challenge is to analyze and consolidate data to produce usable information to improve the continuum of care and inform decision-making.

Human Resources for Health: Indonesia faces a multitude of challenges in the human resources for health (HRH) function of the health system. The current national HRH management and planning systems are no longer reflecting the growing number of responsibilities for the same number of staff. HRH production, availability, and distribution are insufficiently analyzed, which is aggravated by dual/triple practice policies and hence the reduced numbers of full-time practitioners at facilities. Addressing zoonotic diseases also requires a One Health HRH strategy. There is a lack of standardized curricula and competencies to ensure HRH quality, particularly at the subnational level.While the models to improve supportive supervision and mentoring between hospitals and puskesmas are currently being tested, it is currently generated according to disease context, hence consultations and broader stakeholder engagement is needed to establish a stable, accessible model for improving HRH quality.

Integrated Care: The GOI’s transformation agenda emphasizes the value that a strong primary health care (PHC) system can have in sustainably improving health outcomes in the USAID priority diseases. It is important to recognize that PHC should be integrated with other services, including public health services, to support the continuum of care.

Current priority challenges involve the inability to incentivize quality of care; inefficiencies in delivery of care across providers and the levels of the system (e.g. community, primary, secondary, and tertiary) and/or across districts; and difficulties with gatekeeping.

Evidence to Policy: Through USAID/Indonesia’s current and previous health programming, projects have been supporting pilots to test innovations in the health system. Constant innovation is a normative process that Ministries of Health, the insurance fund such as BPJSK, and stakeholders across the health system lead and participate in. This is especially the case during a time when Indonesia is implementing their health transformation reforms. However, Indonesia's institutional capacities to identify criteria for piloting, design the pilot, test the system, generate the evidence on the impact of the intervention at the subnational level, and use that evidence to inform the policy process to integrate and scale up these innovations is still nascent and requires technical assistance. The evidence-to-policy process in Indonesia is weakened by political externalities, regulatory restrictions, poor knowledge transfer to decision-makers and therefore limited translation to policy and implementation at the subnational level.

III. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS (THEORY OF CHANGE)

If the local institutional architecture5 within the financing, information, and HRH functions of the health system is strengthened; AND if healthcare is integrated and better organized at the PHC level and across the public health system to respond to population needs including those specifically relevant to Maternal and Newborn Health (MNH), TB, HIV, and Global Health Security (GHS) programming; AND if evidence from innovative models of care is used to inform the policy process and implementation, THEN the health system will perform more efficiently and effectively; be more accountable and resilient; and a pathway will be established for MNH, TB, HIV, and GHS programming to provide equitable access to quality, affordable, essential health services and sustainably improve health outcomes.

5 Institutional Architecture for HSS is the actors, processes, and resources that interact—or fail to interact—to perform a set of functions that produce health system improvements (Institutional architecture for health systems strengthening:

summary report on a framework for application. Washington, DC: Results for Development; 2020. Available from:

https://www.acceleratehss.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/HSSA-Summary-of-Institutional-Architecture-for-Health- Systems-Strengthening-May-2020.pdf [cited 2022 Jun 19].)

https://www.acceleratehss.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/HSSA-Summary-of-Institutional-Architecture-for-Health-Systems-Strengthening-May-2020.pdf https://www.acceleratehss.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/HSSA-Summary-of-Institutional-Architecture-for-Health-Systems-Strengthening-May-2020.pdf

IV. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The overall goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health system by strengthening the local institutional architecture within the financing, information, and HRH functions of the system to be more accountable and resilient; and establish a pathway for MNH, TB, HIV, and GHS programming to provide equitable access to quality, affordable, essential health services to sustain the short-term gains and improvements in health outcomes.

The objectives are as follows:

Objective 1: Strengthen accountability and performance of health financing Objective 2: Advance the maturity of health information systems Objective 3: Develop fit-for-purpose and fit-for-practice human resources for health Objective 4: Organize more efficient, responsive, and integrated delivery of care Objective 5: Strengthen the ecosystem for the evidence to policy process

V. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Objective 1: Strengthen accountability and performance of health financing

The Flagship will focus on strengthening public financial management (PFM) for TB, HIV, MNH, and GHS in accordance with the emphasis on performance-based budgeting in the new Omnibus Health Law. This will include developing best practices for local (district-and facility-level) resource tracking and planning, aiming to align financial resources with needs. Activities will consider financial protection for vulnerable population groups and gender considerations. In addition, the Flagship will look at strengthening GOI capacity and health benefit package framework for better strategic purchasing for health, under the JKN scheme.Ultimately, the expected outcome is a more streamlined approach to health-related PFM, improved purchasing under JKN, and greater coherence in local planning for vertical program activities.

Objective 2: Advance the maturity of health information systems

USAID has already invested in strengthening coordination and piloting interoperability within the Ministry of Health's SatuSehat platform. However, more work is needed to achieve full digitalization in health.

The HSS Flagship will enhance HIS governance, focusing on multi-stakeholder coordination with key government counterparts. It will also strengthen interoperability, address data quality challenges, and improve data analytics to enhance the capacity of health workers, program managers, and policymakers to make informed decisions. The ultimate goal is to increase Indonesia digital maturity level, reduce data entry burdens, and enhance services in areas such as treatment, prevention, surveillance, and response.

Objective 3: Develop fit-for-purpose and fit-for-practice human resources for health

This Flagship will establish a strong relationship with the HRH unit in the Ministry of Health (Directorate General of Health Workforce) and conduct analyses to inform HRH strategies and policy improvements. It will address the evolving needs of primary care and public health by determining: the right type, number, and skill mix of HRH to achieve the continuum of care; the health functions that should be covered by integrated vs non-integrated HR; and the source of financing that should cover HR for each of these functions. This effort will also standardize the role of community health workers in the context of the PHC transformation and the needs of the MNH, TB, HIV, and GHS programs.

Additionally, the Flagship will support the national learning management system, coordinating resources to ensure training and certification align with national standards, specifically focusing on in-service HRH programs. The expected outcomes include better HRH management and planning, clearer responsibilities for community health workers, and improved quality and performance.

Objective 4: Organize more efficient, responsive and integrated delivery of care

The Flagship will support Indonesia to integrate care that is 1) coordinated across professionals, facilities, and support systems; 2) continuous over time; and 3) responsive to population needs and preferences to improve continuum of care. The focus will be on strengthening emerging integrated care models in MNH, TB, and HIV programming by leveraging electronic medical record systems and JKN system improvements, networking providers, facilitating team-based care, and linking financing to quality, while enforcing gatekeeping and supporting a more effective referral system. The anticipated outcomes include coordinated care, improved gatekeeping, maximized PHC systems, reduced patient loss to follow-up, patient-centered care, and gender-inclusive care.

Objective 5: Strengthen the ecosystem for the evidence to policy process

This Flagship will strengthen the local institutional capacity to test health system innovations and use the evidence to inform policy change. Think tanks and universities will be empowered to engage policymakers to guide, along with government units like the Health Policy and Development Agency (BKPK), tests on health system innovations and the translation of evidence into actionable insights.

To support this, the Flagship will work with GoI to establish an enabling policy environment, akin to a regulatory sandbox, to facilitate testing and implementation of innovations. Finally, the Flagship will provide technical assistance for specific policy evaluations, focusing on USAID priority disease programs like MNH, TB, HIV, and GHS and on the inclusion of gender-related data variables and outcome disparities.

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

ATTACHMENT III: LOCALLY LED PROGRAM INDICATOR

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.

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/speeches/nov-4-2021-administrator-samantha-power-new-vision-global-development

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.

https://pages.usaid.gov/M/OAA/glaas https://pages.usaid.gov/M/OAA/glaas https://pages.usaid.gov/M/OAA/glaas

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.

https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/bureaus/bureau-planning-learning-resource-management

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 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GUv0jFsLHrfU-9v_4bUTmxXXukVGLxhpYED-g625UHs/edit https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/Key-Performance-Indicators-Direct-AA-Funding-Localization.pdf

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 https://pages.usaid.gov/system/files/pdt_co-creation_and_co-design_definitions_.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/co-creation_toolkit_interactive_guide_-_march_2022%20%283%29.pdf https://pages.usaid.gov/M/OAA/professional-development-and-training

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 https://drive.google.com/file/d/11FZiQaMPeyNaP7dvSx0bYWQSLXaJBjcM/view

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…