J.14 Responses to Questions from Presolicitation No. 72066025R00001.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.14 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM PRESOLICITATION NO. 72066025R00001

1. As USAID highlights and as our own experience in DRC has shown, access to finance is a key component for strengthening farming and market systems and is essential for improving gender equity. We recommend that USAID define anticipated coordination between the Resilient Food Systems Activity and USAID INVEST, the existing Development Finance Corporation support, and other USAID access to finance initiatives. We also recommend that USAID expand the emphasis on access to finance in the SOW, allowing the Activity to maximize the impact of access to finance through either direct interventions or by leveraging complementary efforts from these other programs.

USAID Response: Each offeror should propose an approach to access to finance and or to determine in what ways they might interact with the USAID Invest Activity or the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), in accordance with their own technical approach.

2. Section C.4.4, p. 11: Can USAID clarify which current and future USG-funded investments it expects the Resilient Food Systems activity to engage and jointly plan activities with? It would also be helpful if the solicitation identified the specific areas of collaboration that USAID envisions so that offerors can write a more responsive proposal and all roles and expectations are clear in the eventual contract.

USAID Response: Coordination requirements are outlined in Section C of the solicitation. USAID/DRC anticipates a high level of coordination needed, including with Tudituale, the multisectoral nutrition activity, and potentially in other areas as needed such as education. Additional details will be finalized during the inception phase and the work plan.

3. Section C4.4, Flexibility, Inception, and Learning Approach requires 14 analyses to be completed during the 6-month inception phase, and review and revision of all 14 analyses at the end of Years 2 and 4. In our experience, the most effective approach to update the information captured in the initial analyses is to include focused learning questions and analyses as part of the annual household monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) survey to track progress. The questions and analyses depend on the commodities chosen, and what is working and what is not. Incorporating this analysis into annual MEL activities is much more cost-effective and time sensitive than completing all 14 analyses three times over the course of the Activity. Therefore, we would like to suggest that USAID requires offerors to continually assess implementation of activities based on the analyses completed in the inception phase and continually adapt activities, when needed, based on updated evidence throughout the life of the Activity.

USAID response: USAID/DRC intends to use revised summaries of the analyses to inform work planning and identify necessary pivots to the activity during implementation. Please note that this Contract will not require the Contactor to submit copies of the full analyses as deliverables; the requirement is that the Contractor conduct analyses and summarize them in relevant reporting in order to provide context and justification for programmatic approaches and redirection of interventions over time.

4. Questions regarding additional reports and attachments:

• Given the importance of collaborating with Tudituale, could USAID kindly require Catholic Relief Services (CRS) to publicly share all relevant Tudituale materials, particularly intervention descriptions, current work plans, and reports and analyses generated during Tudituale’s inception phase?

• Can other relevant programmatic documents (such as the Tudituale and Enyanya RFSA evaluations and reports) be shared?

• Can any RFSA baseline or inception phase reports be shared at this time?

USAID Response: As reports are approved under that cooperative agreement, they will be uploaded into the DEC in accordance with the requirements of the subject award. No other documents may be shared at this time. The Contractor will be provided with significant additional detail during the inception phase.

5. We kindly request USAID provide Offerors any baseline and inception phase reports that the RFSA has completed. Our previous experience with RFSAs has been that they often complete these reports as part of their start-up processes. These would be tremendously helpful both for planning offerors’ interventions and to inform how to efficiently coordinate with the RFSA after award.

USAID Response: No additional reports are available at this time.

6. Section C4.4.1 Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting (page 16) states that “...once this activity is awarded the Contractor will immediately enter a six-month work planning phase. This work planning phase will serve as an inception period during which the Contractor and USAID/DRC will utilize a co-creation approach to work-planning as a means to refine the technical approach as well as provide significant input for the year-one and two work plans. This inception period will also serve as a time for extensive analysis.” Can USAID please confirm that limited implementation can also be conducted during the inception phase? For example, proven participatory land demarcation and registration and agroforestry models could begin during the inception phase alongside the inception studies to lay the groundwork for rapid implementation later in Year 1.

USAID Response: USAID/DRC confirms that limited implementation can and should be conducted during the inception phase, with the nature of specific interventions to be decided upon in consultation with the COR.

7. Could USAID please clarify if they would like an office in Kinshasa in addition to offices in Kasai

Central and Kongo Central? The Statement of Objectives lends itself to heavy project presence in both zones of influence, and, in our experience, having a Kinshasa-based office facilitates coordination, communication, and collaboration with key stakeholders, including government actors, private sector actors, and USAID.

USAID Response: Offerors should propose an office structure and management approach in accordance with their own technical approach.

8. Section C.2, p. 1: The purpose of this activity includes benefits particularly for “women, youth, and marginalized individuals.” Does USAID have more demographic details on these groups to help offerors nuance their approach? For instance, the proportion of indigenous peoples, migratory populations, or displaced persons it envisions reaching with this activity?

USAID Response: USAID will not be providing additional details on this at this time. It is anticipated that the Contractor will finalize these details in coordination with the COR during the inception phase, and this will be incorporated into the AMELP, workplan, and other relevant deliverables.

9. Section C.3, p. 3: The background section for this draft SOW references the June 2024 USAID

Resilience Policy, but in later parts of the draft (for example, p. 20), it appears to use language and framing from the 2012 policy. Can USAID verify that it expects offerors to apply a resilience lens based on the 2024 policy throughout?

USAID Response: USAID can confirm the 2024 policy should be used throughout.

10. Sections C.3 (p. 5) and F.8.II.9 (p. 39): The draft solicitation correctly identifies the severe logistical challenges impairing the food system in the target zones, especially in terms of transportation, energy, and communications infrastructure. These factors are also an impediment to USAID IPs seeking to establish and manage operations in provinces like Kasaï Central. Would USAID consider including the contractual provisions needed to permit the IP of the Resilient Food Systems activity to oversee modest construction work—such as upgrades to its own offices or rehabilitation of a partner’s agricultural-processing facilities—to give it adequate flexibility to meet its goals while complying with FAR regulations on construction and CFR 216 requirements about environmental and human-safety protections?

USAID Response: Construction is not anticipated in the award at this time. Should it be determined that limited construction is necessary, a Contract Modification will be processed.

11. Section C.4.4, p. 11. Can USAID clarify its expectations for “the MOU between the

USAID/BHA/RFSA activity [that] will be completed on or before the Culmination Workshop and may be ceremonially signed at that time”? For example, what kinds of clauses will the MOU contain and how will it be practically or contractually distinct from the prime contract and/or contractual deliverables like work plans?

USAID Response: USAID/DRC’s expectation at this time is that the MOU may broadly include details on how each project will engage with shared beneficiaries; designate lead implementers for specific areas of the value chain or market system; agreed upon practices for seed systems and distribution;

agreement on shared communication tools, and otherwise document key joint decisions and approached. These details will all be finalized during implementation and MOU negotiation.

USAID/DRC can also confirm that this MOU will be contractually distinct from this Contract. This MOU likewise will not affect the required deliverables under this Contract.

12. The solicitation refers to existing HDP coordination groups. Can USAID make more details available on the current structure, composition, priorities, and activities of existing HDP coordination groups to enable offerors to prepare more responsive proposals? USAID also references a USAID/DRC HDP Nexus Action Plan. We kindly request that USAID provide this plan, if available, or provide offerors guidance on how to align interventions with the plan.

USAID Response: The USAID/DRC HDP Nexus Action Plan is an internal document. However, the Kasai Central HDP Nexus Group Structure and an HDP Presentation for Implementing Partners have been included in the solicitation as Attachments J.12 and J.13. Additional pertinent information and guidance will be provided to the Contractor during the inception phase.

13. Section C.4.5.4, p. 24: Can USAID clarify if it expects the IP to apply the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index, along with the requisite surveys, under this activity, or is this already being applied and assessed by USAID at the program level?

USAID Response: USAID expects the contractor to advance the position of beneficiaries through various aspects of the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index whenever possible and appropriate.

USAID/DRC is currently not assessing WEAI status.

14. Section C.4.6, p. 26: The expected results of the Resilient Food Systems activity are described as substantially contributing to the GFSS target of reducing poverty and stunting by 20 percent in the target zones. The draft SOW states that USAID will measure progress toward this target through a PBS that will “reflect the impact of all stakeholders and change-agents in the ZOI.”

Could USAID clarify in the solicitation that this means reduction of stunting will inform program design but will not be used as a performance indicator (given the lag and complexity among other factors included in the USAID guidance document Measuring Nutrition: More than Stunting)?

USAID Response: Reduction of stunting is expected to inform program design. The Contractor may propose whether or not they will measure changes in stunting as a performance indicator.

15. Section C.4.6, p. 26: Assuming that reduction of stunting will not be a performance indicator for this activity (see recommendation 10 above), can USAID clarify in the final SOW that intermediate results, tracked by indicators such as food-consumption patterns and dietary diversity (HL.9-1) or women’s participation in household decision making (GNDR-11), will be incorporated into the activity-level results framework during the inception period in order to monitor incremental progress toward the anticipated GFSS outcomes?

USAID Response: USAID expects that a final set of indicators supporting an activity-level results framework will be developed during the inception period and approved by the COR.

16. Section C.4.6, p. 26: Can USAID clarify a) what role, if any, the IP of the Resilient Food Systems activity will be expected to play in administering the PBS or analyzing its results; and b) how the results of the survey will be used to set the baseline and target indicators for the activity?

USAID Response: The PBS survey will be carried out separately from this Contract. Offerors are expected to use the results of the survey to inform programming and monitoring, in close coordination with the COR.

17. Section C.4.6, p. 27: The draft solicitation makes numerous references to Non-U.S. Organization

Pre-Award Survey (NUPAS) compliance as a pillar of its localization strategy (pp. 14, 20, 22, 25, etc.) and a contributor to indicators such as CBLD-9. As the draft SOW notes elsewhere, Congolese organizations in the agricultural sector in the Feed the Future ZOI often require significant technical assistance before they can even implement GUCs (see recommendation 8 above), let alone receive a prime award from USAID. Does USAID have specific targets in mind for NUPAS scores or expected improvement across a certain number of organizations that will inform the performance indicators for this activity?

USAID Response: USAID does not have specific targets or expected improvement in mind, yet the expectation is that the Contractor will make a concerted effort to identify and support promising organizations and their movement toward NUPUS compliance.

18. Section F.7, p. 29: The draft solicitation states that the key personnel proposed by offerors will be considered and approved “at a later time.” To ensure rapid start-up, IPs need to plan time for USAID to review and approve key personnel, and for the required notice periods to new staff’s current employers as well as their mobilization to post. For the purposes of IPs resourcing and sequencing their rapid-mobilization period, can USAID provide clearer expectations on when key personnel will be submitted for approval and how long USAID expects to review?

USAID Response: USAID anticipates key personnel candidates to be submitted as soon as practicable after award, and USAID’s responses will be expedited to support a rapid mobilization.

19. Section F.8, p. 34: Throughout this section, can USAID clarify which deliverables can, in the name of localization and adaptive management, be adjusted based on “mutual agreement of the COR and the Contractor” (also see section F.8.II.2, p. 37) to create the time or space for more locally relevant information, a more nuanced implementation strategy, and greater buy-in from partners and long-term project staff? For example, some of the foundational assessments and strategies are more complex to develop than others: with respect to the 13 analyses included in the inception report, the SLI and HDP Nexus analyses can be completed mostly through desk reviews supplemented by interviews of donor-program staff in Kinshasa, Kasaï Central, and Kongo Central; but the Gender and Inclusion and Conflict, Social Cohesion, and Do No Harm analyses will both inform and build from all the others; moreover, their scoping will require careful scrutiny by project staff in light of local conflict systems and gender dynamics before beginning fieldwork. In this case, would USAID consider giving the COR flexibility to accept provisional versions of Year One deliverables to meet the timetables on page 34, with further primary field research to be completed later in the year and incorporated into the first Adaptive Management Report?

USAID Response: USAID is not asking for complete analyses to be submitted for approval. Rather, the inception report will serve as a platform to provide, collectively, summaries of each analysis and how what has been learned to that point is or will impact how interventions are delivered. In this sense, the analyses are living documents intended to be continually adjusted as new learning takes place with a formal presentation of revised summaries through the Adaptive Management Reports at the end of year one and year three.

20. Section F.8.II.9, p. 39: Can USAID clarify how it will conduct its own environmental monitoring of the Resilient Food Systems activity?

USAID Response: USAID will review the content of program progress reports related to environmental impact, monitoring and mitigation measures, and conduct periodic site visits.

Additional third-party monitoring may be conducted at USAID’s discretion.

21. C4.5.1 Component 1, Result 1, pg. 18: The description of C1 R1 notes that the implementer will

“support local systems…to increase the yield of key agriculture crops (staples and commodities), as well as cultivation of nutrient dense vegetables and the production of animal meat protein…” Experience in the DRC and other similar environments indicates that having the flexibility to respond to diverse market opportunities can drive growth and increase resilience. As such, we hope the final solicitation will allow offerors to determine which crops and animal-sourced products they support within Kasai Central and Kongo Central in alignment with their proposed approaches.

USAID Response: In accordance with F.8.II(2), Crop and Animal Analysis and Selection will be finalized in the inception phase, and the final selected crops and animals will be submitted in the inception report deliverable. These crops and/or animals will be discussed between the Contractor and the COR at length and in advance of submitting the choices for approval via the Inception Report.

22. Given the large number of required analyses and plans, will USAID consider extending the inception phase to 9 months to enable the contractor to produce higher quality deliverables.

USAID Response: USAID/DRC will not consider extending the inception phase at this time. Please note that USAID/DRC is not requiring the submission of final analyses for approval by the COR by the end of the inception phase. Rather, the inception report will serve as a platform to provide, collectively, summaries of each analysis and how what has been learned to that point is or will impact how interventions are delivered. In this sense, the analyses are living documents intended to be continually adjusted as new learning takes place with a formal presentation of revised summaries through the Adaptive Management Reports at the end of year one and year three.

23. In C4. Activity Description, pg. 7, one of the “overarching aims of the FTF initiative in the DRC includes, … 2) Reduce malnutrition and stunting in the ZOI by 20% in five years.” Alternatively,

pg. 23, C4.5.3 states, “This component must seek to implement interventions with these changing variables in mind, to attain the nutrition goals of the GFSS and reduce high rates of child stunting.” As USAID notes in the draft statement of work, achieving a reduction in stunting is not solely dependent upon interventions spearheaded by Resilient Food Systems. Ambitious and sustainable results will require concerted efforts by other nutrition programs as well. Our understanding is that the contractor will not be held responsible for a 20% reduction in stunting through this activity alone. Rather, the implementing partner will be responsible for achieving progress against Feed the Future nutrition outcome indicators that will contribute to progress towards stunting reduction within target populations. Clarifying this in the Request for Proposals would be helpful.

USAID Response: Although the Contractor will not be solely responsible for achieving the 20% change, this activity is intended to be the main contributor under the FTF program portfolio in the DRC for reducing poverty and extreme malnutrition.

24. To increase efficiency, we recommend that USAID/DRC consolidate the inception phase analyses and scheduled reporting, which may be duplicative. Specifically, we recommend that USAID/DRC reduces the number of inception phase analyses and prioritizes a subset of the 11 requested analyses. A reduction and prioritization of these inception phase analyses will serve the dual purpose of reducing administrative burden and avoiding duplication of effort and USAID investment, as well as enabling a more efficient start-up. For example, considering the requested “Sequencing, Layering and Integration Analysis”, the necessary information can likely be gathered through a combination of the Tudituale Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) development process and USAID’s Sequencing, Layering, and Integrating Humanitarian and Economic Development Programming Recommendations for USAID/DRC study released in January 2024 and provided in the pre-solicitation as attachment J.6.

USAID Response: USAID/DRC will not be making any changes to the inception phase requirements at this time.

25. If USAID/DRC maintains the need for all inception phase analyses to be conducted, please clarify whether it is necessary to conduct a separate field-based analysis for 1) Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI); 2) Communication Strategy; and 3) Climate and Environmental Adaptation and Mitigation during the 6-month inception period (as noted on page 11), or if the Contractor/Awardee can conduct these analyses as part of its process for developing related reports:

• Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP): due within 120 days

• Communication Strategy and Action Plan: due within 120 days

• Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Analysis and Strategy: due within 90 days

USAID Response: USAID/DRC does not anticipate that it will be necessary to conduct separate extensive field-based analyses for the GESI, communication strategy, or climate and environmental adaptation and mitigation during the inception phase. Offerors are expected to conduct a review of studies already available, and supplement that data with additional research, information gathering, and focus group discussions to validate findings and prepare deliverables. It is assumed that each deliverable will be developed through methodologies compliant with agency requirements and in-line with industry best practice.

26. Page 35, I. Activity Planning and Implementation Reports and Deliverables, line 9: Could USAID please clarify if the Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) deliverable will include the development of a Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP)? If a SUAP already exists for the USAID/DRC Mission, we kindly request USAID make this available to Offerors with the release of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

USAID Response: USAID does have a mission-wide PERSUAP that will be provided to the Contractor after award.