ADD RFP 7200AA24R00083.pdf

RFP Issuance Date October 9, 2024

Questions Submission and Notice of Intent Due Date

October 18, 2024, 4:00PM EST

Phase One Proposal Submission Due Date November 18, 4:00PM EST

Questions Submission Due Date for PHASE TWO (For Offerors Participating in Phase Two)

7 calendar days1 AFTER USAID’s notice to Offerors to submit Phase Two Proposals, 5:00PM EST

Past Performance Information Submission

(For Offerors Participating in Phase Two)

15 calendar day2 AFTER USAID’s notice to Offerors to submit Phase Two Proposals, 5:00PM EST

Phase Two Proposal Submission Due Date 45 calendar days3 AFTER USAID’s notice to Offerors to submit Phase Two Proposals, 5:00PM EST

Anticipated Award Date TBD

Dear Prospective Offerors:

The United States Government represented by the U.S. Agency for International Development is seeking proposals from qualified organizations interested in providing the services as described in this solicitation.

USAID invites all interested and responsible organizations to submit offers in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

USAID anticipates the award of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Term-Type Contract for a five (5) year period of performance as a result of this RFP. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this solicitation is 541990.

The procurement will be conducted through full and open competition, under which any type of organization (large or small commercial [for profit] firms, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations) is eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 apply.

USAID encourages, to the maximum extent practicable, teaming agreements, joint ventures and subcontracting with U.S. Small Businesses. The Offeror shall identify the utilization of U.S. Small Business Concerns and non-U.S. businesses/organizations by filling out and submitting the attached forms located in the Excel Template (J.7) as part of Phase Two submissions.

1 Not counting the day USAID informs Offerors to proceed to Phase Two 2 Not counting the day USAID informs Offerors to proceed to Phase Two 3 Not counting the day USAID informs Offerors to proceed to Phase Two

Request for Proposal (RFP) No.: 7200AA24R00083 ADVANCING DIGITAL DEMOCRACY Activity

The Government intends to conduct the evaluation and selection process in two phases. This is a voluntary down-select process as described in the solicitation. All Offeror’s responding to Phase One are eligible to continue to Phase Two although Offeror’s will be advised after evaluation of Phase One proposals on whether they are considered viable and encouraged to continue. Please refer to Section L for detailed information regarding the Offeror's submission of proposals in Phase One and Phase Two.

Failure to comply with the submission dates and times indicated above may result in a submission being deemed late, as such it will not be reviewed or evaluated. Faxed proposals are not acceptable, nor will they be reviewed or evaluated. Section M states the factors and criteria by which proposals will be evaluated for both Phase One and Phase Two.

Please note, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). However, if the Contracting Officer deems discussions necessary, then discussions will be held with Offerors in the competitive range.

The proposals must be prepared in accordance with instructions included in Section L and will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of this RFP.

If changes are made to the submission closing date and time, as well as other aspects of the RFP, this solicitation will be amended. Amendments will be issued and posted on https://sam.gov/content/home. Offerors are encouraged to monitor this website periodically for such postings. All questions and requests for clarification must be submitted electronically no later than the deadline noted above to drg-add@usaid.gov.

Issuance of this solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the U.S. Government, nor does it commit the U.S. Government to pay for any costs incurred in the preparation or submission of a proposal.

Furthermore, the U.S. Government reserves the right to reject any offer, if such action is in the best interest of the U.S. Government.

Thank you for your interest in USAID programs.

Sincerely, Mir Ershadullah Contracting Officer https://sam.gov/content/home mailto:ACCELERATE@usaid.gov mailto:drg-add@usaid.gov

SF 33 Form to be inserted here

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES/PRICES

B.1 Purpose

The purpose of this contract is to provide technical services to implement activities under the Advancing Digital Democracy (ADD) initiative that aim to build and/or strengthen democratic values and human rights across digital ecosystems in USAID partner countries. Activities will assist a wide variety of stakeholders in identifying, prioritizing and achieving digital priorities in order to strengthen democratic digital governance, societies and economies. Key activity partners and stakeholders include governments, private sector, professional associations, research institutions, academia, civil society organizations, consumer organizations/associations, and regional and multilateral organizations.

B.2 Contract Type

This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) term type contract. The Contractor shall achieve the objectives and deliverables or outputs for the Results described in Section C and F. For the consideration set forth below, the Contractor must provide the level of effort described in Section F.6 to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in Section C, provide all deliverables described in the contract, and comply with all contract requirements.

B.3 Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee and Obligated Amount

(a) The estimated cost for the performance of the work required, exclusive of fixed fee is [TBD]. The fixed fee, if any, for the period is [TBD]. The total estimated CPFF for this contract is [TBD].

(b) Within the estimated cost-plus fixed fee amount specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by the Contractor (and payment of fee, if any) for performance is [TBD].

(c) Funds obligated are anticipated to be sufficient for the period of performance from the effective date of the contract through [TBD]. The Contractor shall not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount unless authorized by the Contracting Officer pursuant to the clause of this contract entitled “Limitation of Funds” (FAR 52.232-22). Funding for this contract will be on an incremental basis, subject to the availability of funds.

B.4 Contract Budget

(a) The contract budget is based on the Contractor’s original proposal and/or final proposal revision, which was accepted by USAID through award of this contract. The budget for this contract is as follows:

Base Period (Contract Year 1)

Line Item Total

Direct Costs $ [TBD]

Indirect Costs $ [TBD]

Total Estimated Cost $ [TBD]

Fixed Fee (Term) $ [TBD]

Total Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee $ [TBD]

Option Period 1 (Contract Year 2) if exercised:

Direct Costs $ [TBD]

Indirect Costs $ [TBD]

Total Estimated Cost $ [TBD]

Option Period 2 (Contract Year 3) if exercised:

Direct Costs $ [TBD]

Indirect Costs $ [TBD]

Total Estimated Cost $ [TBD]

Option Period 3 (Contract Year 4) if exercised:

Direct Costs $ [TBD]

Indirect Costs $ [TBD]

Total Estimated Cost $ [TBD]

Option Period 4 (Contract Year 5) if exercised:

Direct Costs $ [TBD]

Indirect Costs $ [TBD]

Total Estimated Cost $ [TBD]

(b) The inclusion of any costs in the above cost categories does not obviate the requirement for prior approval by the Contracting Officer of cost items designated as requiring prior approval by any of the terms and conditions of this contract, including the applicable cost principles (see FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Cost and Payment”); nor does it constitute a determination of allowability by the Contracting Officer of any item of cost, unless specifically stated elsewhere in this contract. Also, these amounts may not be adjusted without a written modification signed by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor must not bill any amounts against this contract in excess of the amounts specified for each line item.

B.4.1 Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLIN)

The following summary budget sets forth the estimates for individual contract line items:

Base Period (Contract Year 1)

CLIN DESCRIPTION TOTAL

(US$)

0001 Core Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

0002 Buy-In Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

0003 Grants under Contract $2,000,000

Total $TBD

Option Period 1 (Contract Year 2) if exercised:

CLIN DESCRIPTION TOTAL

(US$)

1001 Core Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

1002 Buy-In Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

1003 Grants under Contract $4,000,000

Option Period 2 (Contract Year 3) if exercised:

CLIN DESCRIPTION TOTAL

(US$)

2001 Core Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

2002 Buy-In Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

2003 Grants under Contract $5,000,000

Option Period 3 (Contract Year 4) if exercised:

CLIN DESCRIPTION TOTAL

(US$)

3001 Core Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

3002 Buy-In Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

3003 Grants under Contract $6,500,000

Option Period 4 (Contract Year 5) if exercised:

CLIN DESCRIPTION TOTAL

(US$)

3001 Core Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

3002 Buy-In Component Total Direct, Indirect Costs and Fixed Fee $TBD

3003 Grants under Contract $3,500,000

The CLIN amounts may not be adjusted without a written modification signed by the Contracting Officer. The contractor will not bill any amounts against this contract in excess of the amounts specified for each line item as illustrated above.

B.5 Indirect Cost

Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs must be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases:

Description Rate Base Type Period

TBD % 1/ 1/ 1/

1/ Base of Application:

Type of Rate:

Period:

B.6 Advance Understanding On Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates And Final Reimbursement For Indirect

Costs

(a) The Contractor must make no change in its established method of classifying or allocating indirect costs without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

(b) Reimbursement for indirect costs must be at the lower of the negotiated final (or predetermined) rates or the following ceiling rates:

Description 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

TBD % % % % % %

(c) The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount should the final indirect cost rates exceed the negotiated ceiling rates. If the final indirect cost rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates.

(d) This advance understanding must not change any monetary ceiling, obligation, or specific cost allowance or disallowance. Any changes in classifying or allocating indirect costs require the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

B.7 Cost Reimbursable

The U.S. dollar costs allowable will be limited to reasonable, allocable and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR 31 (Contract Cost Principles), 2 CFR, Part 220 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions), 2 CFR, Part 230 (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations), FAR 52.216-7 (Allowable Cost and Payment), FAR 52.216-8 (Fixed Fee) if applicable, and AIDAR 752.7003 (Documentation for Payment), may be reimbursable under this contract.

B.8 Payment

The paying office is: (See Section G.4.)

B.9 Accounting and Appropriation Data

Determined at time of award.

Budget Fiscal Year:

Operating Unit:

Strategic Objective:

Amount Obligated:

[END OF SECTION B]

C - DESCRIPTION/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 Purpose

USAID seeks proposals to advance the Agency’s key digital democracy objectives. The services or supplies acquired and directed under the resulting contract will enable the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) to implement activities under the Advancing Digital Democracy (ADD) initiative that will build and/or strengthen democratic values and human rights across digital ecosystems in USAID partner countries. Activities will assist a wide variety of stakeholders in identifying, prioritizing and achieving digital priorities in order to strengthen democratic digital governance, societies and economies. Key activity partners and stakeholders include governments, private sector, professional associations, research institutions, academia, civil society organizations, consumer organizations/associations, and regional and multilateral organizations.

C.2 Background

Over the past 30 years, digital technologies have fostered tremendous economic growth, increased commerce, accelerated the development of new industries, and connected and amplified the voices of activists and marginalized communities. These technologies have facilitated the flow of information, created jobs and entire industries, enabled citizen education and political participation, enhanced the efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of government systems and service delivery, and assisted with organizing and advocacy, all of which has helped to strengthen democratic institutions, processes, and values. Yet all these benefits have failed to outweigh a persistent fact: technological innovation has steadily outpaced our ability to identify, avoid and/or mitigate potential harms.

The global economic and political landscape has radically changed over the past 20 years due to new forms of digital innovation, including the steady integration of social media platforms, big data, cloud computing, 5G technology, the internet of things, biometrics (including facial recognition technologies), digital identification, spyware, digital surveillance tools, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning into our lives and governments. The expanded de facto role of technology companies across all facets of daily life, combined with the fact that some governments misuse technology and data to control and repress their populations, has intensified and accelerated global democratic decline, given rise to new forms of violence - including technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV4) - and eroded respect for human rights.5 Governments across the ideological spectrum have weaponized technology and data in what some experts refer to as "digital repression," or the intentional use of digital tools and technology to suppress or violate human rights.6 For more in-depth discussion of the tactics of digital repression see USAID’s Digitized Autocracy Literature Review.

A “digital democracy” is a context where stakeholders design, develop, deploy, govern, and use data and digital technologies in line with democratic values and respect for human rights, including women’s human rights.

The parameters that define a digital democracy are quickly evolving. Following the Summit for Democracy in December 2021, and the launch of a number of other technology and democracy-related initiatives, like-minded democratic nations have launched several additional efforts to articulate human rights-based approaches to digital technologies, including the forthcoming UN Global Digital Compact, Copenhagen Pledge for Democracy and Technology, the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, the Guiding Principles on Government use of Surveillance Technologies, The Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, Hiroshima Process International Guiding Principles for Organizations Developing Advanced AI Systems, and the

4 TFGBV is a subset of gender-based violence that describes any act that is committed, assisted, aggravated, or amplified by the use of information communication technologies or other digital tools, that results in or is likely to result in harm, or other infringements of rights and freedoms.

5 C.f.. Autocratization Turns Viral 6 https://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/digital-ecosystem-framework; See also: USAID Digitized Autocracy Literature Review, 2021 and The Rise of Digital Repression, 2021.

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XV9R.pdf https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechfordemocracy.dk%2Fjoin-the-initiative%2F&data=05%7C01%7CPetersAL%40state.gov%7Cd5acf1a3971947e8f11d08dad15af627%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C1%7C638052485851798976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bWmJ4k38a0nARs%2FaQsxALlJHW%2BqXnJKetqHboBsuf8A%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechfordemocracy.dk%2Fjoin-the-initiative%2F&data=05%7C01%7CPetersAL%40state.gov%7Cd5acf1a3971947e8f11d08dad15af627%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C1%7C638052485851798976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bWmJ4k38a0nARs%2FaQsxALlJHW%2BqXnJKetqHboBsuf8A%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F04%2FDeclaration-for-the-Future-for-the-Internet_Launch-Event-Signing-Version_FINAL.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CPetersAL%40state.gov%7Cd5acf1a3971947e8f11d08dad15af627%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C1%7C638052485851798976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gEKk%2BjxkrGzNVzT%2Fv8SllwE4ZCsQgjzD18wvAgMu2zA%3D&reserved=0 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Guiding-Principles-on-Government-Use-of-Surveillance-Technologies.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Guiding-Principles-on-Government-Use-of-Surveillance-Technologies.pdf https://www.state.gov/2023-roadmap-for-the-global-partnership-for-action-on-gender-based-online-harassment-and-abuse/ https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100573471.pdf https://www.state.gov/2023-roadmap-for-the-global-partnership-for-action-on-gender-based-online-harassment-and-abuse/ https://www.state.gov/2023-roadmap-for-the-global-partnership-for-action-on-gender-based-online-harassment-and-abuse/ https://www.state.gov/2023-roadmap-for-the-global-partnership-for-action-on-gender-based-online-harassment-and-abuse/ https://www.v-dem.net/files/25/DR%202021.pdf https://www.v-dem.net/files/25/DR%202021.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/digital-ecosystem-framework https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XV9R.pdf https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-rise-of-digital-repression-9780190057497?cc=us&lang=en&

Bletchley Declaration. Notable frameworks developed domestically that apply within the U.S. include the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework, the Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence (OMB 24-10) and the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. Additional principles, guidelines, standards, and multilateral treaties continue to be developed globally, particularly for artificial intelligence. While these frameworks continue to evolve, governments, civil society, private sector companies, academics, and others have been working to ensure international human rights principles are respected and protected across the digital ecosystem.

In addition to multilateral and international developments, industry, independent technologists, and data scientists continue to develop, test, and deploy new technologies that can help safeguard democracies. International stakeholders across sectors are pushing for more robust safeguards and better resources for applying the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in digital contexts. As reflected in the Donor Principles for Human Rights in the Digital Age, donor governments have also been calling for increased donor accountability to incorporate safeguarding processes in international digital development support. Additional investment is needed to spur innovation in the practical guidance, legal frameworks, built technologies and business models that will ensure that human rights risks are adequately identified, avoided, mitigated, and redressed.

Expectations remain high that these frameworks, principles, guidance, and standards be debated, negotiated, and drafted through evidence-driven, gender transformative, inclusive, transparent, multi-stakeholder processes that include voices from government, private sector, civil society, academia, technologists, consumer rights advocates and investors. The role of development actors in fostering inclusive global digital policymaking processes is critical. This includes partnering with local governments and civil society actors from across the global majority to meaningfully influence the development, implementation, and oversight of digital governance frameworks so they are both locally owned and align with international standards.

C.3 Problem Statement

The ADD Program will help to stem the global increase in the misuse of data and technology for digital repression by supporting more robust global and local enabling environments for digital democracy. USAID’s Digitized Autocracy Literature Review provides an in-depth analysis of the tactics of digital repression and the related impacts on democratic institutions, systems, values, and respect for and protection of human rights. The enabling environment for digital democracy can be strengthened by addressing the following issues and challenges:

Governments: Legal and Regulatory Frameworks, Implementation and Oversight

Policymakers, legislators, judges and oversight bodies frequently lack the technical skills, budgets and the capacity necessary to safely govern, deploy, use and perform oversight on technology and data. Governments, technology companies, data brokers, and other non-state actors also instrumentalize technology and data in ways that undermine, intentionally and/or unintentionally, democracy and respect for human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and regional or national human rights commitments. For instance, peoples’ personal digital data is routinely collected, amalgamated, and leveraged through processes that, while legal, are often opaque and provide few opportunities for public consent or oversight. Personal data extracted through spyware or through mining of public media can be used to intimidate, harass, and publicly smear the targets’ reputations.7 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Other (LGBTQI+) persons and ethnic minorities whose very existence is criminalized under authoritarian regimes are particularly vulnerable. For women such practices frequently have detrimental effects on psychological, physical, and social well being. Governments need to

7 Frontline Defenders - Unsafe anywhere: women human rights defenders speak out about Pegasus attacks https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023 https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-Risk-Management-for-Agency-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-Risk-Management-for-Agency-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://freedomonlinecoalition.com/donor-principles-for-human-rights-in-the-digital-age/ https://freedomonlinecoalition.com/donor-principles-for-human-rights-in-the-digital-age/ https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XV9R.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XV9R.pdf https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/sites/default/files/unsafe-anywhere_-women-human-rights-defenders-speak-out-about-pegasus-attacks_en.pdf establish and/or strengthen, implement, and create oversight mechanisms for legal and regulatory frameworks for governing digital technologies that align with their commitments to human rights, such as those in the ICCPR.

Private Sector, Education and Innovation

In the absence of economic incentives, regulatory mandates, cross-disciplinary education, and capacity building for the private sector to reform their business practices, technologists can struggle to embed democratic values and respect for human rights in the development and design of hardware, algorithms, machine learning models, and software systems. Developing technology products and services that are rights-respecting by design and default requires buy-in from corporate leadership and investors. It also requires technical expertise from an informed, diverse workforce that understands how to incorporate human rights and equity concerns into coding decisions in order to address digital repression and digital bias or discrimination. Many companies are still lacking comprehensive approaches for incorporating the findings of human rights impact assessments and other due diligence tools into the corporate governance and workflow in the design and development of digital technology and data management. Business leaders in emerging and more established markets must be incentivized to fully adopt what is needed to transform the technology sector by aligning development and design choices with the principles outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Universities must also be incentivized to produce a rights-respecting technology workforce by building curricula that draw on both social and computer sciences. At the local and global levels there are too few fora in which regulators, investors, corporate executives and human rights experts can engage in open dialogue and collaboration with software engineers, product design staff, and policy staff, in a way that increases the integration of rights-respecting approaches into product design processes.

Civic Engagement and Digital Repression

Civil society, oversight bodies, consumer advocacy organizations and the broader public have an essential role to play in holding governments, developers and the private sector accountable for respecting human rights and democratic values in a rapidly digitizing age. Many strong civil society actors are working on these issues already, particularly at the global and regional levels. However, current efforts are insufficient to meet the rapid proliferation of challenges technology presents to individual human rights and democratic institutions and societies. With additional knowledge, support, and resources, civil society organizations, civic groups, and the public could more effectively influence governments and the technology sector to adopt rights-respecting approaches that strengthen democracy. Encouraging dialogue and building and strengthening coalitions between civic actors, technologists, private sector, investors, academics, and government stakeholders could increase understanding of the incentives, economic considerations, and shared goals among different actors, leading to more effective advocacy and oversight.

Civic actors face a few key challenges in effectively engaging on issues of democracy and technology. One major challenge is the fundamental imbalance of money, power, and influence in the relationship between governments, companies and investors, civic actors, academics, and consumers that must be addressed for civil society actors to have more effective influence. Governments and global companies often drive decision-making on technology issues, while the concerns of civil society groups, including consumer advocacy groups and the broader public, are often sidelined or ignored. Although slowly changing, one persistent gap has been the relatively low level of effective participation by civic actors in multilateral and industry fora where technical standards that guide technological development are set, and where major decisions about technology's global governance are made. To be able to engage in these important norms-shaping spaces, civic actors must be resourced with tools and long-term technical training, including information about industry protocols, procedures, and discourse, human rights due diligence processes, and algorithmic and product development.

Finally, activists, journalists, and other civil society actors are disproportionately targeted, harassed, surveilled, hacked, imprisoned, and/or killed by governments, which outlines tactics of digital repression. In addition to persecuting populations, this misuse of technology and data has a chilling effect on the exercise of human rights such as expression, assembly and association. Female and gender nonconforming civic actors are particularly vulnerable to such technology-enabled repression, and are more likely to experience violence than their male counterparts.

Technology's Global Governance

No single, overarching structure currently exists through which governments, technologists, technology company executives, private sector companies, investors, civic actors, and academics can discuss and collectively determine the “rules of the road” for digital democracy. Recent advances in European regulation and voluntary standards (as outlined above) have started to shape global norms in ways that strengthen universal human rights standards. However, these developments have occurred alongside increasing internet fragmentation, the growing use of digital repression by governments across the democratic spectrum, and private sector monetization of user data, including the concerning growth of third-party data broker industries in under-resourced corners of the globe.

Lacking comprehensive, fit-for-purpose, mandatory policies and safeguards, companies have been building their own independent regulatory frameworks. This siloed approach results in duplication, inconsistency, confusion, and consumer distrust. Multinational companies have thus joined civil society activists and democratic leaders in calling for consistent global norms, criteria, or standards to help guard against both unintended human rights violations and potential liability.

C.4 WORK REQUIREMENTS

The goal of the Program is to foster and strengthen "digital democracies" by promoting open, secure, safe and inclusive digital ecosystems in which data-driven technologies advance, rather than undermine, democratic values and respect for human rights, including the rights of women, LGBTQI+ and other marginalized populations. The Program must support USAID partners in addressing and/or building resilience to digital repression, and supporting rights-respecting digital transformation and growth of the digital economy. This approach is consistent with, and outlined in, the USAID Digital Strategy. Program activities must support local actors in addressing current challenges while enabling them to future-proof their societies so that digital systems built today do not drive democratic decline and human rights abuses tomorrow. Given that digitalization cuts across all sectors, the Program aims to achieve its goals by offering to support and strengthen country-level and global multistakeholder coalitions or platforms that can identify opportunities for networking and constructive engagement, leverage incentive structures, and establish common priorities for expanding rights-respecting and inclusive digital access, economy and governance.

The Program will provide comprehensive development support for partner-country stakeholders to spur rights-respecting digital innovation while addressing the potential adverse impacts of technology and data across the digital ecosystem. As such, the Program will operate primarily in open and hybrid political contexts in partnership with local government stakeholders, to the extent possible. This will necessitate differentiated, locally-led approaches and designs that are fit-for-purpose interventions at the country level. The Program is intended to engage and partner with government, civic, and private sector actors, using gender equality, inclusive development and political economy lenses to leverage opportunities and address specific local needs. As part of this approach, the Program is focused on strengthening multi-stakeholder coalitions and platforms that will elevate diverse voices and foster relationships and networks to share learning, negotiate, and build consensus among governments, the private sector, civil society, technologists, professional associations, academia and other stakeholders.

https://www.usaid.gov/digital-development/usaid-digital-strategy

ADD represents a major expansion of USAID’s toolkit to advance digital democracy and address digital authoritarianism and repression. The Contractor must conduct two categories of ADD activities: a) Level I: ADD activities that are centrally managed by the Contractor as the “Global Mechanism” and are implemented at the “Global Level,” meaning in ADD Focus Countries, in other USAID partner countries, or globally as part of a multi-country effort (e.g. a regional workshop or a global research index) and b) Level II: comprehensive ADD activities that are designed and implemented at the country level in partnership with local actors across multiple objectives in ADD Focus Countries.

Level II activities must be primarily implemented in ADD Focus Countries that are selected by USAID in consultation with the Contractor and other stakeholders. In 2024, three ADD Focus Countries were selected:

Peru, South Africa and Armenia. These ADD Focus Countries must establish Level II ADD Programs in 2025.

ADD Focus Countries will be re-evaluated on an annual basis and the number of ADD countries may increase or decrease over the life of the Contract depending upon availability of funds. This must be reflected each year in the Annual Work Plan and Budget.

In each ADD Focus Country, USAID will tailor Level II activities to the unique digital context and development challenges, while maintaining the integrated approach described above. A critical priority for the ADD Program is to strengthen resilience to the misuse of data and technology in partnership with ADD Focus Country stakeholders. The Program must also maintain flexibility to provide resources to local actors facing digital repression. The Agency is keenly aware that investments in the digital ecosystem will exacerbate digital divides unless and until access to digital technologies is universal. In response, USAID aims to facilitate digital transformation safely and equitably, without exacerbating inequities that undermine democratic societies, governance and institutions. ADD programming must foster environments in which development actors, civil society and the private sector can partner more effectively to increase digital access and bridge digital divides.

Support Supplied by the Contractor ADD must implement activities at the global and local levels to spur rights-respecting, inclusive digital innovation and address the existing and future adverse impacts of technology and data across the digital ecosystem. This support must be achieved through the Objectives, Sub-Objectives, and illustrative activities outlined below.

The Contractor must provide services that deploy locally-driven solutions to the challenges presented in the above Problem Statement in close partnership with local actors. The Contractor must deploy technical assistance, partner with local stakeholders, issue grants under contract, and issue performance-based sub-contracts when suited.

Level I Activities Supplied Through the Global Mechanism:

At the Global Level, the Contractor must provide certain cross-cutting functions that advance the ADD Goal.

Level I activities must be carried out by the Global Mechanism. These activities must include the following:

• Develop an ADD research capability that will support analytical tasks such as stakeholder mapping, political economy assessments, legal and socio-technical analysis;

• Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of ADD Program performance, indicators, and impact;

• Support for Digital Ecosystem Country Assessments (DECAs), and other relevant assessments;

• Support for workshops, communities of practice and other convenings for cross-learning;

• Support for local digital stakeholders in USAID partner countries to attend global and regional convenings to participate in the development of digital standards and policy; and

• Manage the ADD Academy (described below), by organizing stakeholders participation, managing ADD Academy curriculum and training modules, managing company partnerships, and other activities as needed.

Level I activities complement and reinforce Level II activities conducted at the country level. Many Level I research activities aim to assist USAID in developing an evidence base for digital democracy programming.

Level I support for local stakeholders to attend international convenings aims to build more inclusive policy and standards processes at multilateral and regional institutions such as the Open Government Partnership, the Freedom Online Coalition, the African Union, the Organization of American States, Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, the Global Partnership on AI, etc. In addition, the Global Mechanism must provide ongoing support and networking opportunities for multi-stakeholder coalitions and platforms to engage with one another. The Global Mechanism must also respond to the evolving needs of global policymakers by providing ad hoc expertise, convening and analysis to support urgent policy priorities. This must also include conducting literature reviews or convening communities of practice, to enlist global experts to define stronger risk mitigation measures to safeguard the risks of AI and other emerging technologies.

Level I activities must be determined by USAID in partnership with the Contractor and in consultation with local digital stakeholders. The scale of these activities will be determined by the availability of funds for Level I activities on an annual basis and specified in the Annual Work Plan.

Level II Support Supplied in ADD Focus Countries:

The Contractor must design and manage Level II ADD activities across ADD Focus Countries in a locally-driven, cost-effective manner. For 2025 this includes three ADD Focus Countries. To design and implement each ADD Program at the country level, the Contractor must rely on local and regional knowledge and expertise, partnering with local organizations, including women-led and women’s rights organizations, and institutions, including through grants under contract and sub-contracts. Specific Contract activities must be determined by the Contractor and USAID based upon the availability of funding, and in robust consultation with local ADD partners and stakeholders. Level II activities must be specified in each Annual Work Plan.

Every ADD Focus Country must implement a context-based set of interventions that must be prioritized based on engagement and consultation with local stakeholders across the digital ecosystem. Each ADD Focus Country program must include activities that advance the three Objectives, however, not all countries will implement every Sub-Objective, as they may not all align with the priorities identified by local stakeholders. The Contractor must provide support for the following Level II Activities in ADD Focus Countries:

• Ongoing stakeholder engagement, consultation, monitoring and evaluation, research and needs assessments. Manage grants under contract and sub-contracts.

• Objective 1 Core Activities: Provide technical assistance to government officials and entities in the form of training, embedded advisors, development of digital safeguards, and/or ongoing mentoring to support robust legal and regulatory enabling environments. Translate and/or adapt international standards and principles to meet local needs, context and language. Elevate local stakeholder voices in global processes to develop international standards and principles.

• Objective 2 Core Activities: Develop and/or adapt guidance for technologists and companies to build products, applications and socio-technical systems that align with human rights by design and default approaches. Provide technical assistance to local stakeholders to strengthen capacity for developing and implementing digital safeguards. Engage with global and local private sector actors to identify opportunities for public private partnerships, including venture capital opportunities.

• Objective 3 Core Activities: Support new or strengthen existing multistakeholder coalitions or platforms that can be composed of government, private sector and civil society (including academia, trade associations, consumer rights entities, etc.). Support participation in ADD Academy and other training opportunities for local stakeholders. Provide networking opportunities for local coalitions or platforms across ADD Focus Countries.

These core activities must be supported by the Contractor. Additional activities must be implemented in each ADD Focus Country based on USAID budget, as well as the priorities identified by the multistakeholder coalitions or platforms and other stakeholders across the local digital ecosystem. Such additional activities must be included in the Contractor’s Annual Work Plan. The below section outlines how core activities and illustrative additional activities advance the ADD goal, objectives and sub-objectives.

Table 1. ADD Table of Objectives.

Objective 1 - Governments implement legal and regulatory frameworks related to technology, data and information that align with and fulfill their international human rights and democratic commitments.

Objective 1:

Governments implement legal and regulatory frameworks related to technology, data and information that align with and fulfill their international human rights and democratic commitments

Objective 2:

Strengthen human rights protections and democratic values throughout the product development lifecycle and the digital economy

Objective 3:

Multi-stakeholder coalitions and platforms are established or strengthened to empower all digital stakeholders and to advance common goals

Sub-Objective (SO) 1.1 Regulations are developed, strengthened and/or implemented to foster a rights-respecting digital ecosystem

SO 2.1 Resources and capacity to produce rights-respecting digital products and services are increased

SO 3.1 Multistakeholder approaches to advancing rights-respecting digital ecosystems are locally-owned and sustainable

SO 1.2 Governments have the capacity and resources to advance a rights-respecting digital transformation

SO 2.2 Democratic business enabling environments are strengthened

SO 3.2 Stakeholders across the digital ecosystem have capacity and opportunity to influence digital priorities and decision-making

SO 1.3 Information ecosystems support human rights and democratic digital governance

SO 2.3 Tools, resources and capacity to manage, audit and report on digital risks are more effective and widely available

SO 3.3 Support for human rights defenders, including women’s human rights defenders (WHRD) and civic actors provided in transitioning contexts

SO 1.4 Governments have greater cybersecurity capacity and resources

SO 2.4 Private sector partnerships are leveraged to strengthen ADD results

1.1 Regulations are developed, strengthened and/or implemented to foster a rights-respecting digital ecosystem:

Core Activities Under SO 1.1: ADD must support digital stakeholders to engage in consultative processes to develop, strengthen and/or implement domestic legal and regulatory frameworks on technology and data governance that align with their international human rights commitments, including the ICCPR. This must include the provision of technical assistance to government officials and entities in the form of training, embedded advisors, ongoing mentoring, etc. It must also include the development and adaptation of international standards and principles to meet local needs, context and language.

Additional SO 1.1. Activities Based on Local Priorities and Available Funds: Where local digital stakeholders express demand for additional activities to advance SO 1.1., and when funding is available, the contractor must supplement the Core Activities. Supplemental interventions can be selected from among the following list of illustrative activities:

• Technical assistance for executive branch institutions such as line ministries, judicial actors, or legislative bodies, including legislative committees.

• Technical assistance for local actors engaged in reform of their existing laws and regulations or drafting new ones in line with international standards and principles, including the right of women to be free from gender-based violence online.8 Subsequent support could be provided to facilitate implementation across national and subnational governments. Emphasis could be placed on encouraging multi-stakeholder approaches to legal and regulatory processes and oversight or accountability functions in each branch of government–including strengthening processes for engagement with civil society actors (as more fully described under Objective 3). Efforts could also include support for independent or quasi-governmental commissions established pursuant to legislation governing data privacy and protection, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence or other sub-sectors.

• Technical assistance for NHRIs and other legal actors or institutions that play critical roles in advancing a rights respecting digital ecosystem. Support to legal or judicial actors could include capacity building for application of universal human rights principles to cases involving technology, data or the information environment, and cross-learning from other jurisdictions also grappling with these issues. Cross-cutting support could be provided to strengthen institutional oversight mechanisms within government, including support for independent national human rights institutions (NHRIs) or ethics committees.

• Strengthening the business enabling environment by supporting frameworks that govern responsible business conduct and fair competition across digital sectors, cross-border digital trade, digital services, digital markets, fintech, venture capital investments, and digital innovation or entrepreneurship (as detailed in Objective 2).

• Support for interested government actors to develop or strengthen regulatory sandboxes or other digital safeguards that prevent the potential adverse impacts and the misuse of technology. This could include support for human rights and gender equality impact assessments.

• Support for consumer protection agencies, organizations and advocates in strengthening these critical safeguards, particularly in contexts where advocacy for other forms of legal and regulatory safeguards is less feasible.

ADD support must be provided at the country level or, when necessary to meet SO 1.1, at the global level through multilateral and regional bodies including the African Union, ASEAN, the Organization of American States, the Open Government Partnership, the OECD, the Global Partnership on AI, Freedom Online Coalition, Christchurch Call, the Generation Equality Action Coalitions, etc.

8 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N23/233/65/PDF/N2323365.pdf?OpenElement

Key elements of the digital ecosystem – as outlined in USAID’s Digital Ecosystem Framework – on which this Sub-Objective could focus include strengthening or developing frameworks that govern internet services and service providers, telecommunications more generally, data privacy and protection, cross-border data flows, artificial intelligence, algorithmic accountability, access to information, machine learning, cybersecurity, surveillance, gig work, social media platforms, digital transformation, digital service delivery, digital public infrastructure, information, hate speech, technology facilitated gender based violence (TFGBV), consumer rights/protections, hardware and software, etc.

1.2 Governments have the capacity and resources to foster a rights-respecting digital transformation:

Core Activities Under SO 1.2: Support must include technical assistance to develop and implement human rights-based safeguards for digital transformation and related digital systems or processes, including digital identification systems, digital voter registration or voting systems, digital service delivery, etc. Interventions must also include technical upskilling for government employees, in the form of training, embedded advisors, or mentorship. The ADD Program must also engage on matters relating to digital public infrastructure (DPI) both at the Global Level and at the country level.

Additional SO 1.2. Activities Based on Local Priorities and Available Funds: Where local digital stakeholders express demand for additional activities to advance SO 1.2., and when funding is available, the contractor must supplement the Core Activities. Supplemental interventions can be selected from following list of illustrative activities:

• Where digital infrastructure investments advance the ADD goal, support will be provided for digital development investments relating to digital transformation, digital government, digital public infrastructure and digital service delivery.