Amendment 2 to Addendum 1- Job Training and Placement for Likely Migrants.pdf

Amendment No.2 to Addendum 1- Job Training and Placement for Likely Migrants-to the El Salvador Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS)Annual Program

Statement (APS) No.: 72051921APS00001

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to the questions submitted by interested parties in regards to this Addendum.

Except as expressly herein amended, Addendum 1 terms and conditions remain the same.

Thank you for your interest in USAID/El Salvador programs.

Craig Riegler Supervisory Agreement Officer Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance USAID/El Salvador

QUESTION & ANSWER DOCUMENT

1. Would you please clarify the limit number of pages for every section of the proposal.

Number of pages per section is reflected as a suggestion. Applicants may decide how to present the required information while adhering to the total established concept paper page limit.

2. Please specify if we could attach the Letters of Commitment, as text in the addendum versus the template seem contradictory on that.

Letters of Commitment can be included as an attachment to the concept paper.

3. We have 3 vocational training programs focused on single teen mothers and at-risk young girls aged 14 – 22 years since 2012 each lasting two-years and in 2019 we started the first of our social enterprises. Could we submit a concept paper for each or are we supposed to submit only one for both?

Interested organizations are restricted to submitting only one concept paper as the Prime Applicant in response to one of more pursued outcomes listed in the addendum, keeping in mind that the proposed cost (requested funding amount) should be reflective of, and commensurate with, the number of outcomes being addressed as opposed to the total funding available under the addendum.

4. Do we leave the template guidelines and write down the answer just below it or is there a USAID preferred -or formal- format?

The template provided and guidelines therein are meant to support the development of concept papers; wording meant as guidelines should not be part of submissions.

5. The reasons we’re looking for funding is to a) Expand/improve our vocational training programs and b) Scale up our social enterprises. Am not sure which one to emphasize for funding, a or b?

It is up to the interested organization to choose activities- in line with the sought outcomes listed in the Addendum- to be submitted under a concept paper.

6. Page 26 of addendum #1 mentions under evaluation criteria that concept notes are required to respond to at least one of the outcomes and no less than four outputs per outcome. We fit in the NPI Initiative, our operation is indeed focused with the alliances that could be made with organizations with which we are related, but we could respond to less than four of the outputs as stated in the addendum. Based on this, what would be our options in seeking partnership with USAID under this addendum?

The applicant should seek and propose alliances with local and/or international institutions to comply with the requirement of addressing at least four of the outputs, as required in the Addendum.

7. Number of awards and funding. USAID notes that it anticipates “supporting up to three awards totaling up to $29,674,000.” Does USAID anticipate making 1 award covering all 3 objectives, 1 award per objective, or 1 award per geography? What is USAID’s desired funding allocation by objective?

There is no predetermined allocation of funding. The actual number of awards (up to three), and the focus and amount of each, depend on the viability of concept papers received and availability of funding. If addressing less than the three outcomes listed, the proposed cost (requested funding amount) should be reflective of, and commensurate with, the number of outcomes being addressed as opposed to the total funding available under the addendum. In other words, if a concept paper addresses only 1 objective then it should request USAID funding of far less than the total of $29,674,000.

8. Exclusivity. The concept paper template, question 10, page 33 asks for “Names of Partner Organizations – Applicants that are applying as Mentors will name local Subpartners here:” Does USAID require at concept stage exclusivity agreements and letters of support from local organizations/possible mentees, or may we simply list indicative partners and a justification for their inclusion?

Proposed agreements with Salvadoran organizations must be non-exclusive. The proposed local partner must have an important and active role in implementation, reflecting NPI core values for sustainability of the proposed activity. Letters of support can be included as attachments to the concept paper.

9. On May 21, 2021 USAID announced it is redirecting assistance away from some GoES institutions and towards civil society organizations. Please indicate if the implementing partner will be expected to coordinate closely with the Ministry of Education and INSAFORP under this agreement or whether we should focus exclusively on engaging with non-GoES actors.

The Ministry of Education and Insaforp should play an important role in implementation of anticipated activities under the Addendum, especially for Objectives 2 and 3. Therefore, coordination and engagement with MoE and Insaforp is expected.

10. On page 10 of the Addendum, item 4b says “In coordination with the Salvadoran Institute of Professional Formation (i.e. INSAFORP) design of at least 15 technical-professional certification programs (at least three for each sector in technical areas with an average minimum wage twice the established minimum wage).” Could USAID please confirm that there are 5 sectors that have already been identified as having an average minimum wage twice the established minimum wage, and please name those 5 sectors?

USAID has not identified the five sectors. Applicants should propose the sectors based on the context and priorities stated in the CDCS. Additionally, applicants are encouraged to consider building on the sectors identified in former USG education and workforce development projects, including but not limited to the following:

● · Higher Education for Economic Growth o Final report:https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TS42.pdf

● USAID Bridges to Employment

○ Final report: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00X3KS.pdf

● Education system strengthening under the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact.

11. Page 24 of the Addendum states that “Concept Papers shall not exceed five (5) pages.” The sample format of a concept on pages 31-34 asks that applicants identify the NPI modality offered and answer the ten questions on page 33 (questions on the proposed activity name; certification, with explanation, of eligibility under USAID priority/programmatic focus area (from Section C.1. of the APS); proposed period of performance; etc.). Could USAID please confirm that identifying the NPI modality and answering the ten questions on page 33 do not count towards the 5 page limit for concept papers?

The form for identification of the NPI modality offered and questions does not count towards the 5 page limit for concept papers.

12. USAID indicates that there will be up to 3 awards for the available funds. Can USAID specify how interventions can be divided among these awards? Should they be divided by objective, by geography, or can it be more flexible—for example, is it possible to undertake only some of the interventions within a given objective or combine interventions across objectives in a way that matches our specific expertise?

USAID cannot determine the division; the applicant should submit the Concept Paper based on the Merit Review Criteria and Considerations on page 26 and propose the conceptual approach and methodology.

13. Clarifications on the text of the addendum:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TS42.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00X3KS.pdf o Is there a missing phrase at the bottom of p. 6?

o Is there a missing phrase or typo on p. 12, point 5?

The word “migration.” is missing at the end of page 6. There is no missing phase on page 12, point 5.

14. Will scholarships or short-term training incentives/stipends/student travel allowances be allowed with this funding?

Yes, if the allowances are in accordance with USAID policies and regulations.

15. Can USAID clarify what “flexible modalities” means, specifically in the phrase “increase their enrollment to high school graduation ratio through flexible modalities.” For example, does this refer to MEGATEC programs?

Flexible modalities are the Ministry of Education accelerated programs for out-of-school youth.

It does not refer to the Megatec programs, focusing on technical vocational and training for high school students.

16. Can USAID please define what it means by “education service providers”. For example, does USAID consider higher education institutions like universities to be eligible for participation under Outcome 2, subpoint 8, as “education service providers” if these serve the target population with flexible offerings to help populations complete their high school education? Or should “education service providers” be among those registered with INSAFORP? Please clarify if there is a specific definition or list of options USAID is using for this term.

Education service providers are academic or NGO institutions certified and approved by the Ministry to provide flexible modalities for out-of-school youth. These include a wide range of institutions that provide professional training and/or education to potential beneficiaries (including NGOs, Universities, Foundations, etc). Higher education institutions are eligible for participation under Outcome 2 if they are certified by the Ministry of Education; for flexible modalities it is the Ministry of Education that certifies the service providers and not Insaforp.

17. Various numbers of education institutions are mentioned under each expected outcome. Could USAID please clarify the relationship among the following?

o Outcome 1.3: US Government-assisted academic organizations and/or education service providers (fostering at least 25 alliances with private sector) o Outcome 2.8: 6 education service providers (3 per geographical hub) o Outcome 3.2: participating education service providers (each to have at least one trauma-support process) o Outcome 3.4: at least 40 public high schools (5 per geographical hub) o Outcome 3.5: at least 5 high schools to increase survival/retention rates (and is this 5 total, or 5 per geographical hub?)

o Outcome 3.6: at least 20 high schools or service providers to receive infrastructure/materials

For example, are the “education service providers” mentioned in Objectives 1, 2, and 3 intended to be the same institutions across all three objectives?

Service providers are academic or NGO institutions certified and approved by the Ministry to provide flexible modalities for out-of-school youth. Public high schools are administered directly by the Ministry of Education and provide students with a high school diploma in a formal setting. Education service providers can be the same institutions across all three objectives if the Ministry of Education has certified them for flexible modalities.

18. Outcome 2.10 refers to designing a “sufficiency test in key technical areas to apply certified professional training toward a high school level degree from MINED”; however, MINED already has a sufficiency test for every grade of general high school that can be completed by any youth or adult, including those who have participated in INSAFORP professional trainings. Can USAID please clarify what is intended here and how it differs from what exists already? Is the intent a new test that would cover just the technical “bachillerato” grade 12?

Correct, MINEDUCYT has a SUFFICIENCY test for every grade of general high school of flexible modalities. The intent is a new "certification" test that would cover the technical proficiency for a “bachillerato.” This will have to be validated and coordinated with

MINEDUCYT.

19. Does Outcome 3.3 on decreasing drop-out rates by 5% apply nationally, or only among participating high schools and education service providers?

Outcome 3.3 refers to participating high schools and education service providers.

20. Are there 3 prioritized geographical hubs, or 8 hubs? Outcome 3.4 states “at least 40 public high schools (5 per geographical hub)”, which implies 8 hubs, yet p. 8 identifies only 3 geographical hubs (three urban hubs defined by the CDCS (i.e., San Salvador, San Miguel, and/or Santa Ana)

USAID prioritized three urban hubs located in San Salvador, San Miguel and Santa Ana. The Applicant should propose the target high schools based on accessibility to the urban hubs.

21. Does point 3.1 on “employment and labor market information departments” at education service providers refer to what is more traditionally called a career center? Is this to be strengthened in the minimum 6 education service providers indicated under Objective 2.8, or in the 40 high schools indicated in Objective 3.4, or both?

Service providers and high schools play a different role. Please refer to question No. 17.

Career development centers are for Universities, whereby university students receive training in life skills specifically oriented toward workplace success, career guidance, and advice to explore career pathways all of which are aimed at helping students find employment and keep it. For other higher education institutions such as MEGATECs and all other education service providers these are called C-Orientas, which offer youth a one-stop shop of services including career guidance, information about available training and educational opportunities, job search assistance and labor orientation and coaching, among others.

Objective 2.8, or in the 40 high schools indicated in Objective 3.4 are two different expected outputs. These six education service providers (2 per prioritized geographical hub) to be strengthened are "flexible modalities education service providers authorized by El Salvador's Ministry of Education". Objective 3.4 will be implemented in public high schools (at least five per prioritized geographical hub and prioritizing at least half to be those with previous USG investments such as the integrated school systems strengthened by Fomilenio II) with fast-track programs with formal tertiary technical institutions (MEGATECs).

22. A great deal of dropout happens before the high school level in El Salvador. While we understand that this activity is focusing mainly on youth and young adults (and therefore would not address dropout within the basic education years), what about the dropout that occurs between 9th and 10th grades? Outcome 3 refers only to dropout “among technical high school students” (presumably meaning those who already started 10th grade and drop out during 10th, 11th, or 12th grades before completing their diplomas). But should there not also be interventions to ensure that more youth transition from 9th to 10th grade (from educación basica to educación media) in the first place? Will such interventions be allowed in concept notes?

For activities under this APS Addendum, USAID will focus only at the high school level (10th-12 grade) of education. Therefore, all activities proposed should target students at this level of education.

23. Outcome 3, Output 4 states: “Implement in at least 40 public high schools (at least five per prioritized geographical hub and prioritizing at least half to be those with previous USG investments such as the integrated school systems strengthened by Fomilenio II) with fast-track programs with formal tertiary technical institutions (MEGATECs). Would USAID consider revising this output, given MEGATECS are based outside of the three urban hubs as defined by the USAID El Salvador CDCS?

USAID will consider MEGATECs that are outside the three urban hubs defined in the CDCS since they provide access to students in these three hubs. Therefore, the applicant should propose approaching high schools located in the three urban hubs and incorporating students on a fast track through Megatecs that serves these populations.

24. For this addendum, what is USAID’s standing on exclusive partnerships between international lead implementers and national/local organizations?

This is prohibited. Please refer to question No. 8.

25. Would USAID consider allowing for 10-point font for tables, figures and graphics instead of 12-point per page 24?

A 10-point font is acceptable for tables, figures and graphics.

26. At the concept paper phase, are applicants to identify key personnel positions? If yes, could USAID please provide guidelines regarding presentation of key personnel?

It is required that key positions be identified in the concept paper, identification of candidates to fill those positions is not required at this stage.

27. Would USAID confirm that letters of support may be submitted as an attachment to the submitted concept paper?

Confirmed, letters of support/commitment may be submitted as an attachment to the concept paper.

28. Section C.2: Cost Share and Matching. It is noted that Addendum #1 for Jobs Training and Addendum #2 GBV Prevention both have similar paragraphs on Cost Share and Matching. However, GBV Prevention, which has a $35M ceiling is requiring 3% to 10% in cost share while Jobs Training, which has a $29.6M ceiling is requiring 10% to 25% in cost share. Would USAID kindly consider reducing the recommended cost share percentage for Jobs Training to align with GBV Prevention?

The suggested cost share percentage range for this addendum is based on programmatic rationale, the development sector, and as a means of ensuring sustainability. Per Section C 2. of the Addendum, the cost share range presented is a recommendation, not requirement.

29. Section A.2.Expected Outcome #1. The Addendum stipulates $5M leverage from Private Sector. Can USAID confirm that the $5M leverage is required for applicants under Outcome #1 in addition to the 10% to 25% cost share? If so, cost share plus leverage ($5M of total $29.6M is 17%) would equal 27% to 42% of total award. Would USAID consider reducing leverage to a percentage of total cost, something closer to 5% to 10%? And/or offering an option to applicants to select either leverage or cost share versus both?

Yes, any cost share proposed under outcome 1 would be in addition to the $5M leverage output.

Additionally, please refer to questions No. 28 and No. 32.

30. Attachment #1: Concept Paper Template. Would USAID kindly consider allowing applicants to provide the answers to questions 1-10 of the template (Section A) to be provided in a cover letter that would not count towards the 5 page limit?

Please refer to question No. 11.

31. Would USAID consider allowing the option for an Organizational Chart to be submitted as an Annex, not part of the 5-page limit?

Yes, the organizational chart can be submitted as an annex to the concept paper.

32. Section A.2. Expected Outcome #1, Output 1 requires that offerors “Achieve a $5 million leverage with the private sector.” If an applicant foregoes output #1, and instead select the other four outputs under outcome #1, would USAID please clarify whether the applicant is still expected to propose an amount of leverage (even if less than $5 million) under the Cost Note Template Question #5 “Total Amount of Funding Requested from USAID and total amount leveraged”?

The $5M leverage is one of the potential outputs under Outcome 1; an applicant may choose not to address this output. If viable, considering this output may potentially increase activity results, demonstrate ownership and support sustainability.

33. Would USAID clarify the age range of the target beneficiaries for the activity?

The age range of the target beneficiaries is 16-40 years.

34. What criteria is USAID using to define persons at risk of migrating?

Please refer to the CDCS https://www.usaid.gov/el-salvador/cdcs for this information.

35. Are youth-in conflict with the law and incarcerated persons considered vulnerable populations in the context of this addendum?

For purposes of this Addendum, USAID will not consider working with youth in conflict with the law and incarcerated persons.

https://www.usaid.gov/el-salvador/cdcs

36. Will USAID consider other peripheral municipalities with high internal migration rates to the three urban hubs defined on the addenda as eligible target geographies?

Yes, if the applicant can justify how this approach will reach the project goal, outcomes, and expected outputs.

37. Are local and multinational large private sector companies considered eligible partners under Outcome 1?

Yes, local and multinational large private sector companies are eligible partners.

38. Section C.1: Eligible Applicants: Please confirm that the percentage thresholds for funding directed to eligible partners NPI modalities (pg 21 of addenda; per Section C.2, pg 24 of the APS) is not required to be directed entirely to one local partner, but may instead be a cumulative total for multiple local partners (50% for modality 3.a, 75% for modality 3.b).

Confirmed.

39. Section C.2: Cost Sharing or Matching: Given that the Addenda includes a specific cost share requirement of 10%-25% (pg 23), as allowed under ADS 303.3.10.2, and as noted in ADS 303.3.10.1, the Activity Planner will have made a determination of the appropriate amount of cost share in support of the requirement to include the determination in the financial analysis of the program. We respectfully request a copy of that determination (written a memorandum documenting the factors that were considered when determining the amount of cost share) as the range is greater than our initial assessment of 5-10% of reasonable opportunities for cost share.

The cost share determination memorandum is an internal document. Please note that per Section C 2. of the Addendum, the cost share range presented is a recommendation.

40. Concept Paper Template: Please confirm that the total program funding requested in the template (pg 33, items 4 and 5) is intended to include only USAID funding and additional leveraged funding, not cumulative value of in-kind cost-share expectations.

Item 4- “Total Program Amount” refers to the total cost of the activity proposed, funding from all sources included. Item 5- “Total Amount of Funding Requested from USAID and total amount leveraged” refers to the breakdown of funding from each source. Please note that in-kind contributions may be applied to (or be considered) leverage.

41. Section A.2: Purpose/Objectives/Development Results: Expected Output 1 under Expected Outcome 3 references maintaining an alumni database (pg 13); is this in reference to one specific centralized database in use that USAID intends the project to maintain, or is the Mission looking to create a new database or databases?

The Recipient will be required to create a new database and upload information on indicators.

The program-based database will track alumni information and facilitate graduates to appropriate jobs and will be maintained by the Recipient.

42. There are several mentions in the addenda of coordinating with or strengthening the capacity of government institutions. In light of USAID's recent statement about redirecting assistance for El Salvador away from certain national government institutions (ie National Civilian Police) and toward civil society and private sector, could USAID please clarify if or how activities that require coordination with other GoES institutions (ie MINED, INSAFORP) will be affected?

Please refer to question No. 9.

43. Could USAID please share its definition of “protective factors and resilience” of potential migrants in urban hubs as referenced on page 9 so all interested parties share a common understanding of the term?

For a clear understanding of protective factors and resilience, please refer to the El Salvador CDCS.https://www.usaid.gov/el-salvador/cdcs

44. Page 3 of the addendum notes, “USAID/El Salvador seeks to better prepare Salvadorans to take advantage of the economic opportunities, jobs, and income potential through… 4) supporting policy and regulatory reforms related to human capital development in areas where GOES commitment is evident.” However, policy and regulatory reform outcomes are not included in the expected outcomes and results section beginning on page 9. Could USAID please clarify whether policy and regulatory reform outcomes are expected as part of the Addendum, e.g., as a fourth expected outcome or considered cross-cutting in support of the overall project goal?

Regulatory reform outcomes may be considered if the applicant justifies the proposed approach and how reaching these will achieve the Addendum's goal, objectives, and outcomes.

45. Can USAID please confirm that the total amount leveraged and source of leverage (mentioned on page 33) is not required at the concept note state?

If leverage is proposed, this information is required and must be included in the concept paper.

https://www.usaid.gov/el-salvador/cdcs

46. Could USAID please confirm that to encourage maximum participation of Salvadoran organizations in the initiative, that all partnerships with Salvadoran organizations should be non-exclusive?

Confirmed. Please refer to question No. 8.

47. Could USAID please confirm that to facilitate co-design and maximum engagement of Salvadoran organizations through a proactive Collaborate Learn and Adapt process, that concept notes may contain illustrative proposed partnerships in anticipation of further engagement during co-creation and implementation? Could USAID please confirm that it is not necessary at the concept paper stage to name all local Sub-partners (as referenced on page 33)?

Named local sub-partners and a description of how they will effectively contribute to the activity is necessary. USAID will consider concept papers based on the established merit review criteria.

Criterion 2 requires the concept paper to succinctly demonstrate the applicant’s effectiveness in terms of administrative capacity, and that of its proposed partners, if any. It should describe an organizational structure that shows clear roles and responsibilities; as well as the positions and personnel that will be considered essential for the implementation of this activity.

48. The Addendum review criteria states that concept papers must comply with the three critical elements in Section C.1 of the CDCS APS. The APS section C.1.c states, “Does the activity demonstrate how it expands and diversifies USAID’s partner base so that it helps to equip and fund more local champions and locally established partners to support the country level progress.” Could USAID please confirm that it is appropriate to describe how applicants will expand, diversify and equip locally established partners in Section E.

Intervention Approach of the Concept Note response?

Yes, this is appropriate.

49. Can USAID please clarify where (in what section) Applicants should include certification of elements of C.1 a-c of the APS, such as on the cover page of the concept note submission under section 1. Certification, with Explanation, of Eligibility under USAID Priority/Programmatic Focus Areas?

The concept paper must demonstrate, not certify, compliance with the three critical elements in Section C.1 of the CDCS APS. Also, please refer to question No. 48.

50. Can USAID clarify the closing time and time zone for First Round submissions on July 9th?

Closing date for submission of concept papers for the first round is July 19, 2021, midnight- El Salvador time per Amendment 1 issued on July 2, 2021. Interested applicants are highly encouraged to submit Concept Papers for the first round as USAID may determine that a second round is not feasible.

51. Can USAID provide a file size limit (if applicable) for electronic submissions?

An electronic file size limit has not been set. Considering the anticipated document size per the established guidelines, the electronic document size should not be an issue.

52. Can USAID clarify whether the background information (i.e. Proposed Activity Name; organizational information, etc.) is to be counted as part of the 5 page concept paper submission, or if it is to be a cover page and not counted in the 5 page limit.

Inclusion of this information counts towards the 5-page template.

53. Are font sizes smaller than 12 point permissible for tables, charts, and graphics?

Please refer to question No. 25.

54. Could USAID please clarify what additional information is expected in response to the mention of “etc” in the Concept Note Template item 9, “Type of Organization”, which requests “date of incorporation, etc.”?

This refers to additional information that the applicant considers supportive of its submission..

55. Regarding Management and Staffing, can USAID confirm that providing names of proposed personnel at the concept note stage is not required and will be finalized throughout future submission phases? If so, can USAID revise the following statement for clarity on merit review criteria: “Describe an organizational structure that shows clear roles and responsibilities as well as the positions and personnel that will be considered essential for the implementation of this activity.”

Please refer to question No. 26.

56. Can USAID provide an estimate of the value or range of each of the three awards anticipated?

Please refer to question No. 7.

57. Does USAID anticipate using a specific template or budget format for this opportunity, if so, can USAID provide it?

A budget template will be provided to applicants who successfully complete the concept paper phase and are invited to submit full applications.

58. “Education service providers” are key actors referenced throughout the Addendum.

Could USAID clarify the definition of an “education service provider” and a “participating education service provider”? How are they the same or different from technical high schools, public high schools, U.S. Government-assisted high schools that are also referenced in the Addendum 1?

Please refer to question No. 16.

59. Expected Outcome 1, Expected Output 2 states: “Partner with at least 15 large private sector companies to establish and implement academic advancement career paths for current workers who have less than a high school degree.” Is there a working definition of “large” company that is applicable to this outcome?

Large private sector companies are defined as large-scale corporate-controlled financial or business activities and are considered big businesses (e.g., Microsoft, Google, JPMorgan, Apple, General Motors, Walmart).

60. Expected Outcome 1, Expected Output 4 states that applicants would design at least 15 technical-professional certification programs (at least three for each sector). In this case, does “each sector” refer to the FOMILENIO II sectors referenced in footnote 13: Tourism, Textile, Construction, Poultry, and Sugar, with the exception of Plastics?

The applicant should consider previous work by the US through the Millennium Challenge Corporation but can also justify and propose new sectors that will contribute to reaching the goals and objectives of this Addendum.

61. Expected Outcome 1, Expected Output 8: In addition to the clarity sought in our first question above regarding the definition of “education service providers,” is the intention of this output to work with USG-supported education service providers? Is the term “education service providers” referring to formal public schools or other in this output?

Please refer to question No. 17.

62. Expected Outcome 2, Expected Output 5 states: At least 50% of beneficiaries on average who complete a USG-assisted program experience a positive change in earnings (increased income potential) following their participation in the workforce development program. Output 2 indicates 12,000 Salvadorans completing the USG-assisted program, while Output 3 and 4 indicate placing a total of 4,000 vulnerable Salvadorans in new or better jobs. To help clarify between these complementary indicators, is there a minimum number of beneficiaries, who on average, would need to demonstrate positive change in earnings?

Output 2 indicates 12,000 Salvadorans completing the USG-assisted program [50%] = 6,000 ppl.

experience a positive change in earnings (increased income potential) of these, 4,000 must also demonstrate new and better employment.

63. Expected Outcome 3, Expected Output 3 states, “Decrease drop-put rates by 5% among technical high school students, who are likely migrant youth, through job placement services, wraparound services, and technical formal education.” Is this indicator to be measured as 5% of the given technical high school population, or is it 5% of the technical high school students participating in the given USG-assisted programs?

It refers to 5% of the technical high school students participating in the given USG-assisted programs.

64. On page 10, Expected Outcome 1, numeral 4, literal a, it says "These certifications will consider previous work done by the US Government through the Millennium Challenge Corporation and six private sector committees created to inform technical and professional training (tourism, Textile, Construction, Plastic, Poultry, and Sugar)". For Expected Outcomes 2 and 3, can the proposal include an expansion of this selection of sectors to work with others, depending on the context of the country and the potential of the work zones?

Please refer to question No. 60.

65. On page 11, numeral 3 of Expected Outcome 2, it is stated: Place at least 2,500 vulnerable Salvadorans in better jobs within the formal economy (primary attribution), but in numeral 4 they do not specify in which sector of the economy it may be the first job.

In this sense, is USAID open to expanding labor insertion in the informal economy, considering that in the future this will lead to a formalization of work?

Yes, USAID is open to expanding labor insertion in the informal economy; the applicant will propose and justify how its approach will reach this Addendum's goals and objectives.

66. On page 11, numeral 5 of Expected Outcome 2, it is stated: At least 50% of beneficiaries on average who complete a USG-assisted program experience a positive change in earnings (increased income potential) following their participation in the workforce development program. On the basis of what should this 50% be calculated;

about what is expressed in number 3 (Place at least 2,500 vulnerable Salvadorans in better jobs within the formal economy) or 4 (Place at least 1,500 vulnerable Salvadorans in new jobs)?

Output 2 indicates 12,000 Salvadorans completing the USG-assisted program [50%] = 6,000 ppl.

experience a positive change in earnings (increased income potential) of these, 4,000 must also demonstrate new and better employment.

67. In reference to page 11, numeral 8 of Expected Outcome 2 (Strengthen at least 6 education service providers (2 per prioritized geographical hub) to increase their enrollment to high school graduation ratio through flexible modalities) and page 12, numeral 4 of Expected Outcome 3 (Implement in at least 40 public high schools (at least five per prioritized geographical hub and prioritizing at least half to be those with previous USG investments such as the integrated school systems strengthened by Fomilenio II) with fast-track programs with formal tertiary technical institutions (MEGATECs)), in terms of the supply of National Vocational Technical Institutes that officially have high school degrees articulated with MEGATEC's superior technicians, there are 17, of these, only 4, are located (geographically) in defined hubs by USAID. In this case, the goal of 5 institutions per hub that have the “fast track” characteristic could not be achieved. Please if you can clarify this point.

In relation to the 6 institutions that will be strengthened (2 by geographic area), should they be physically located in the hub territories defined by USAID, or can they be considered institutions that, although not physically in said geographic areas, provide services (provide coverage ) in these municipalities?

On page 12, numeral 4 of Expected Outcome 3 (Implement in at least 40 public high schools (at least five per prioritized geographical hub and prioritizing at least half to be those with previous USG investments such as the integrated school systems strengthened by Fomilenio II) with fast-track programs with formal tertiary technical institutions (MEGATECs)): The expectation is to create the “fast track” degrees that would articulate with MEGATEC's superior technicians, beyond the articulated high-schools that currently exist. Please also see footnote 20 .

Please refer to question No. 23.

68. In reference to page 11, numeral 8 of Expected Outcome 2 (Strengthen at least 6 education service providers (2 per prioritized geographical hub) to increase their enrollment to high school graduation ratio through flexible modalities) and to page 12, numeral 4 del Expected Outcome 3 (Implement in at least 40 public high schools (at least five per prioritized geographical hub and prioritizing at least half to be those with previous USG investments such as the integrated school systems strengthened by Fomilenio II) with fast-track programs with formal tertiary technical institutions (MEGATECs)), in our preliminary research, there are not enough educational institutions that meet the requirements set out in both paragraphs, will USAID accept proposals that are based on real data, even though the goals are lower than those established in the addendum?

The applicant should justify the proposed approach based on real data on how it will contribute to reaching Addendum’s goals and objectives.

69. Page 10 of the APS Addendum states: “Achieve a $5 million leverage with the private sector (financial, in-kind, etc.) to contribute to preparing likely migrants for employment…” Would USAID please clarify if support of universities, Municipalities, Ministries and schools will be considered as leverage?

Leveraged funding must come from the private sector. Hence, support from Municipalities and Ministries, or any other governmental institution, is not eligible as leverage.

70. Page 14 of the APS Addendum states: “The activity should be active in at least one of the three urban hubs in El Salvador: San Salvador, San Miguel, and/or Santa Ana.”

Would USAID consider the expansion of geographic coverage to departments surrounding San Salvador, San Miguel and/or Santa Ana?

Yes, however the applicant would need to strongly justify expanding geographic coverage and explain how it will contribute to the Addendum’s goals and objectives.

71. Page 11 of the APS Addendum states: “Place at least 2,500 vulnerable Salvadorans in better jobs within the formal economy (primary attribution).” Would USAID please clarify the definition of “better jobs”?

Better employment may imply a change and amelioration on the job environment, benefits, growth opportunities, beyond just increase in wage. For further information please refer to:

https://www.edu-links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/2020%20Compendium%20of%20Standar d%20PIRS%20for%20Education%20Programming_0.pd

72. Page 11 of the APS Addendum states: “Strengthen at least 6 education service providers (2 per prioritized geographical hub) to increase their enrollment to high school graduation ratio through flexible modalities.” Would USAID please clarify if local consortium partners can be considered among the six education providers?

Yes, local consortium partners can be considered education services providers if they have been certified as such by the Ministry of Education to provide flexible modalities.

https://www.edu-links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/2020%20Compendium%20of%20Standard%20PIRS%20for%20Education%20Programming_0.pd https://www.edu-links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/2020%20Compendium%20of%20Standard%20PIRS%20for%20Education%20Programming_0.pd

73. Page 12 of the APS Addendum states: “Document at least one USG-assisted trauma support process at each participating education service provider to provide job placement services and wraparound services for likely Salvadoran migrants, returnees, and vulnerable populations who have dropped out of school to obtain new or better employment. The exact number will depend on the number of schools or education service providers recommended through the technical proposal. More specific targets would likely be overly prescriptive.” Would USAID please define “educational service providers”?

Please refer to question No. 16

74. Page 12 of the APS Addendum states: “Implement non-structural adaptations of educational infrastructure, and provide equipment, technology and didactic materials necessary for the effective development of educational services in at least 20 U.S.

Government-assisted high schools and/or education service providers.” Would USAID please clarify if training centers are considered education service providers?

Please refer to question No. 17

75. We understand the focus on the private sector as a partner to help address employment issues, investments, and expansion of economic opportunities. However, there are other entities with mixed-status public/private or public that also carry out businesses that may be expanded benefitting the creation of opportunities in the private sector with similar benefits. Can these entities be presented as local partners similar to private sector entities?

Yes, the applicant must justify how mixed-status public/private entities that carry out businesses will contribute to reaching Addendum’s goals and objectives.