FINAL FY20 DFSA RFA for Zimbabwe - 01-15-2020.pdf

FY 2020 Development Food Security Activities for Zimbabwe RFA

Issuance Date: January 15, 2020 Deadline for Questions: January 27, 2020 Closing Date: March 16, 2020 CFDA Number: 98.007 Closing Time: 11:59 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time)

Subject: Request for Applications for Development Food Security Activities in

Zimbabwe

Title: Fiscal Year 2020 Development Food Security Activities in Zimbabwe

Funding Opportunity Number: 72DFFP20RFA00004

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Food for Peace (FFP) is seeking applications for funding for development food security activities in Zimbabwe.

Private voluntary organizations or cooperatives, including U.S. and non-U.S.

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), may apply. Public international organizations are also eligible to apply.

Subject to the availability of funds, under this Request for Applications (RFA)1, FFP plans to make up to the number of awards as described in detail in the Program Description. Please refer to the Program Description for a complete description of possible locations and activities.

USAID reserves the right to use any assistance mechanism available to this agency (e.g., grant, cooperative agreement, leader with associates award) and to adjust the number of awards, funding levels, sources of funding, and/or procedures. The funding source will be Title II Funds. The applicant’s activity designs inform funding levels, but FFP sets funding levels for successful applicants. FFP will notify successful applicants of any changes or updates, accordingly.

1This RFA is not accompanied by a Country Specific Information (CSI) document. FFP issues CSIs in conjunction with RFAs only when an RFA covers more than one country. This was the case in Fiscal Year 2019 when FFP issued a Development Food Security Activity RFA that covered both Madagascar and Malawi. In that instance, the RFA incorporated two separate CSI documents, one each for Madagascar and Malawi.

Issuance of this RFA does not constitute an award commitment on the part of USAID, nor does it commit the U.S. Government to pay for any costs incurred in the preparation or submission of the comments/suggestions or an application. Applications are submitted at the risk of the applicant. All preparation and submission costs are at the applicant’s expense. This includes the completion of all required documents for USAID awards.

FFP cannot make final awards until funds have been fully appropriated, apportioned, allocated, and committed. While FFP anticipates that these procedures will be successfully completed, FFP hereby notifies potential applicants these requirements and conditions for award.

For the purposes of this award, the RFA consists of this cover letter and the following:

SECTION I – PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

SECTION II – FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

SECTION III – ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

SECTION IV – APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

SECTION V – APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

SECTION VI – FEDERAL AWARD AND ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

SECTION VII – FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACTS

SECTION VIII – OTHER INFORMATION

APPENDIX I: Definitions and Program Areas and Elements APPENDIX II: Past Performance Reference Questionnaire

APPENDIX III: FY 2020 Refine and Implement

To be eligible for the award, the applicant must provide all required information in the application, including the requirements found in any attachments to this opportunity on www.grants.gov. Any future amendments to this RFA can be downloaded from www.grants.gov. This information may also be posted on the FFP website. It is the responsibility of the applicant to use the most up-to-date versions of all of the documents related to this RFA.

USAID may not award to an applicant unless the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and System for Award Management (SAM) requirements detailed in Section IV, section f. The registration process may take many weeks to complete. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to begin registration early in the process.

Please send any questions to the email address identified in Section IV. The deadline for questions is January 27, 2020.

Applicants should refer to the Development Activity Application Guidance on the Development Activities section of the FFP website, including Technical References and the Monitoring and Evaluation Policy.

http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/what-we-do/development-activities https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/what-we-do/development-activities

Per 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 700, USAID regulations do not award profit under assistance instruments. However, all reasonable, allocable, and allowable expenses, both direct and indirect, which are related to the agreement activity and which are in accordance with applicable cost standards, may be paid under the agreement.

USAID may (a) reject any or all applications, (b) accept applications for reasons other than cost, or (c) accept more than one application (see Section V - Application Review Information). USAID intends to award predominantly cooperative agreements, but reserves the right to award any other form of assistance agreement. USAID may waive informalities and minor irregularities in applications received.

In the event of any inconsistency between this RFA and the documents referenced in the RFA, the RFA takes precedence over any referenced documents (including the Technical References), except statutes and regulations. In the event of an inconsistency in the RFA documents or in the text of the RFA, it will be resolved at the discretion of the Agreement Officer (AO).

Thank you for your interest in USAID programs.

Sincerely, /S/

Clyde Hicks Director, Office of Food for Peace

Section I – Program Description

This RFA provides information on funding opportunities for development food security activities. Development activities are mandated in the Food for Peace Act and align with the FFP 2016-2025 Food Assistance and Food Security Strategy. The Food for Peace Act, as amended, authorizes this funding opportunity. The resulting award will be subject to 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and USAID’s supplement, 2 CFR 700, as well as the additional requirements found in Section F. More specific information on the objectives, interventions, geographic locations targeted within the countries, and/or funding levels and types covered by this RFA may be found in the Program Description section. In addition, FFP posts market analyses, Climate Risk Profiles, and other related resources on the Country Fact Sheets page of the FFP website, as applicable.

If conditions permit (determined by FFP), the application process will include two phases. The first phase is the submission and review of an initial application (technical application and cost application). Successful first-phase applicants may also receive letters of invitation to present their applications orally, and to address topline issues identified during the initial review of their applications. If they occur, oral presentations will constitute the second phase of the technical review process and will be a condition of the award. After discussions have concluded, the Apparently Successful Applicant(s) will receive a final issues letter, if necessary, and will be required to submit final technical and cost applications.

1. FFP Development Food Security Activities

The Office of Food for Peace (FFP), in USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), is the U.S. Government leader in international food assistance. FFP works to reduce hunger and malnutrition and assure that adequate, safe and nutritious food is available, accessible, and well-utilized by all individuals at all times to support a healthy and productive life.

Through FFP, USAID supports multi-year development food security activities to improve and sustain the food and nutrition security of vulnerable populations. These activities work at the individual, household, community and institutional levels to address the underlying causes of food insecurity and strengthen transformative opportunities. This includes a focus on improving food access and incomes through agriculture and other livelihoods initiatives; enhancing natural resource and environmental management; combating under-nutrition, especially for children under 2 and pregnant and lactating women; and mitigating disaster impact through early warning and community preparedness activities. Development food security activities are intended to strengthen resilience in populations vulnerable to acute, chronic hunger and recurrent shocks, stresses and crises, and to reduce future need for ongoing or emergency food assistance. These activities are increasingly integrated with other USAID efforts to promote resilience and reduce extreme poverty.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/FFP-Strategy-FINAL%2010.5.16.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/zimbabwe/food-assistance

Since FY 2016, FFP has been awarding its development food security activities under a co-creation model known as Refine and Implement (R&I) which is intended to improve activity’s design, fit to context and implementation planning. In the case of the Zimbabwe Development Food Security Activity (DFSA), the goal of the two-fold approach to co-creation is to employ the FFP R&I approach in a way that is appropriate and beneficial to the context, with a significant emphasis on community consultations, trust building, and implementation-driven learning.

R&I includes multiple stages.

During initial refinement, new awardees may carry out a number of activities including traditional start-up tasks and additional activities which may be, but are not limited to:

● Participatory stakeholder engagement and community consultation for strengthened local partnerships;

● Initial implementation of interventions that have clear evidence bases and/or meet urgent needs;

● Preparation for implementation through hiring;

● Local capacity building;

● Procurement of goods and services;

● Pre-implementation activities that address evidence and knowledge gaps and strengthen understanding of local context;

● Implementation research (e.g., pilots) of new approaches and implementation strategies;

● Refining the staffing pattern to fit the programmatic needs; and

● Refining the activity Theory of Change (ToC) and related documents.

At the end of the initial refinement period, awardees may revise the ToC and related documents in consultation with FFP and the implementation plan updated accordingly.

FFP expects that throughout the award, as a matter of strong adaptive management and continued program quality improvement, awardees will continue with efforts to close knowledge gaps, refine planning, test innovative approaches, update the theory of change and related documents and continue stakeholder engagement and coordination with other relevant actors.

After an external evaluation in year four, FFP will allow highly successful activities to be extended and continue for up to five years past the traditional five-year DFSA time frame. The R&I model creates the opportunity for FFP DFSAs to more closely align with FFP strategic and programmatic priorities (See Section 2). Any extension beyond the initial five-year award is subject to the Justification to Restrict Eligibility (JRE) approval process in USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) 303.

2. FFP Strategic Priorities

In FY 2017, FFP launched the Food Assistance and Food Security Strategy 2016-2025 (FFP Strategy) that laid out priorities for the future around sustainability, systems approaches and a new set of cross cutting areas of focus addressing gender equity and https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/FFP-Strategy-FINAL%2010.5.16.pdf youth empowerment, social cohesion and social accountability. In seeking improved and more sustained food and nutrition security for vulnerable populations, the FFP Strategy works through two parallel objectives: to protect and enhance lives and livelihoods while strengthening and transforming communities and institutions.

The FFP Strategy’s Results Framework is a global framing of FFP’s work, outlining what is considered within FFP’s mandate, as well as what is expected to be within the skill sets and capacities of our implementing partners. At the field level, the exact contours of a program will depend on context, needs, available resources and the skills, capacities and roles of other food and nutrition security actors working in that space.

● FFP Strategic Objectives

SO1: Lives and Livelihoods Protected and Enhanced FFP works to protect and enhance the lives and livelihoods of those affected by crisis, and those vulnerable to crisis due to chronic poverty and hunger. In acute emergency situations, this may be by meeting immediate food and nutrition needs of those most vulnerable to food deficits through direct resource transfers accompanied by complementary programming that seeks to maximize the impact of those resources. In recovery and development settings, the emphasis may shift more strongly towards improving the lives of the most marginalized and protecting development investments through capacity building, knowledge transfer, household asset-building, or other productive investments contributing to improved food and nutrition security outcomes across a range of sectors.

SO2: Communities and Institutions Transformed Even in the most acute crisis, work that avoids doing harm and succeeds in strengthening local systems—including both social dynamics and formal and informal institutions—can lay an important foundation for transformative change. Under SO2, FFP works to strengthen communities and institutions that then serve as catalysts for greater and more sustainable change in emergency response and long-term development settings alike. SO2 provides a pathway to address the root causes and drivers of food insecurity, through efforts at the community level and, where appropriate, up to national policy and planning, in ways that strengthen the capacity of both formal and informal institutions, reduce risks, and provide engines of growth, opportunity, and change.

● FFP Strategy Intermediate Results

The SOs in the FFP Results Framework (RF) are each supported by four Intermediate Results (IRs) that address social protection, nutrition, environmental management and increasing incomes and assets. The IRs under SO1 focus on the individual- and household-level capacities required for positive change, while those under SO2 address the community and institutional capacities required to promote, support, and sustain those changes.

Across all IRs, FFP’s strategy calls for a broadened concept of risk management that, in addition to natural hazards such as drought and flooding, addresses risks posed by fragility, conflict, pandemic disease and climate change, as well as idiosyncratic shocks, such as the death of a household head. Working at multiple levels, protecting and enhancing the lives and livelihoods of individuals and households—while also strengthening local systems—creates synergies between the two SOs and the IRs under them. It also increases the need for FFP and its partners to sequence, layer, and integrate activities within FFP programs, as well as with other USAID, local government and donor-funded efforts.

● FFP Strategy Cross-cutting Intermediate Results

A set of crosscutting IRs underpins the SOs and IRs, to support the empowerment of women and youth, enhance social cohesion, and strengthen social accountability. They are intended to bring new focus and clarity to work to positively influence the local systems—including both social dynamics and formal and informal institutions—in which FFP emergency and multi-sectoral development food security activities are implemented.

● FFP Strategy Corporate Objectives

The FFP strategy also includes three Corporate Objectives relevant to FFP and partners alike. These are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FFP’s work through strengthening partnership and influence, capacities of staff and institutions, and the evidence base underlying work in food and nutrition security.

● Other U.S. Government and USAID Strategic Priorities

The FFP Strategy and programming contribute to countries’ Journey to Self-Reliance by improving capacity and commitment of government and local systems, and USAID’s mission to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies; and to the DCHA Bureau’s strategic objectives, notably “supporting areas of recurrent crisis to become more resilient.”

The FFP Strategy also contributes to and reflects the USAID Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy 2014-2025, USAID policy and program guidance “Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis,” USAID’s policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment;

USAID’s policy on Youth in Development, and USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Strategy. Notably, through FFP’s DFSAs, the Strategy also contributes to the U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy, 2017-2021, launched in October 2016.

3. Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes

FFP intends to award up to two cooperative agreements to sustainably improve food security and resilience among extremely poor and chronically vulnerable households and communities in Manicaland, Masvingo, and Matabeleland North. The cooperative agreements will follow the R&I approach. Subject to the availability of funds and commodities, applicants must request in-kind Title II commodities. FFP’s most recent list of Title II commodities can be found in the Food for Peace Fiscal Year 2020 Commodity and Ocean Freight Price Estimates document. Note that FFP does not intend to prescribe the amount of in-kind Title II commodities applicants must propose or the timeframe during which they must be programmed. These decisions will depend upon each applicant’s activity design. Applicants may also request Title II Section 202(e) funding to support local and/or regional procurement of food commodities, cash transfers, and food vouchers. Internal Transport, Storage, and Handling (ITSH) funds can only be programmed in conjunction with commodities sourced from the United States. ITSH funds cannot support costs associated with commodities procured locally, https://selfreliance.usaid.gov/ https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USAID_Nutrition_Strategy_5-09_508.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USAID_Nutrition_Strategy_5-09_508.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDResiliencePolicyGuidanceDocument.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDResiliencePolicyGuidanceDocument.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/GenderEqualityPolicy_0.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID-DRG_fina-_6-24-31.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID-DRG_fina-_6-24-31.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USG-Global-Food-Security-Strategy-2016.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1866/commodity-and-ocean-freight-price-estimates https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1866/commodity-and-ocean-freight-price-estimates regionally and/or internationally. Other types of funding and monetization are not authorized. All resource requests must be appropriately justified.

Manicaland and/or Masvingo

FFP intends to award one cooperative agreement of approximately $55 million, in Title II resources, for an initial five-year period. The goal of the activity is to achieve sustainable food and nutrition security.

Desired high-level objectives:

● Poverty reduced

● Adaptive and absorptive capacity improved

Matabeleland North FFP intends to award one cooperative agreement of approximately $75 million, in Title II resources, for an initial five-year period. The goal of the activity is to improve food and nutrition security through increased food access and sustainable watershed management.

Desired high-level objectives:

● Adaptive and absorptive capacity improved

● Watershed management improved

As part of the monitoring, evaluation, and learning process, USAID will separately fund a third party to conduct an impact evaluation—possibly using an experimental method— to assess the impact of each activity. By submitting an application for this RFA, applicants agree to collaborate with and assist a research institution of USAID’s choice in the implementation of the impact evaluation.

4. Programming Principles

● Design for People-Centered Approaches

FFP is committed to keeping the interests and the voices of the most vulnerable people at the center of its work, and to crafting development responses based on the strengths, priorities, risks, and needs of the target population. Creating opportunities for vulnerable populations suffering from extreme poverty and food insecurity requires working in partnership with them, understanding their resources and capacities, as well as the broader systems that support them through formal and informal institutions and social dynamics. People-centered approaches require addressing challenges—such as shocks and stressors—that may undermine opportunities for positive change and providing linkages to newly emerging or previously out-of-reach resources, services, and catalysts for change.

● Prioritization and Focus

A highly complex set of determinants affects food availability, access, and utilization. In low resource environments, the full sweep of context-specific needs and opportunities can easily exceed the capacity of any one activity to respond comprehensively and effectively. There are limits, in addition, to the level of change in knowledge, attitudes, and practices that individuals, households, and communities can absorb. Effective programming will identify leverage points and factors that address key drivers of food insecurity and seek to prioritize and sequence a limited number of interventions.

Analysis and prioritization of factors must be completed for each system and objective.

Once those are prioritized and targeted, FFP encourages partners to address the most limiting factors of each desired outcome sequentially—i.e. the most limiting factor is targeted first, the second most limiting factor is targeted second, and so on. This approach broadly follows Liebig's law of the minimum, which states, in summary, that a system is constrained not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor). This will ensure responses are feasible, catalytic in nature, and tailored to the needs of each subpopulation, while also ensuring they can be implemented with a high degree of quality and impact.

● Strive for Sustainability

In its goal statement, FFP has increased its commitment to investing in improved food security for vulnerable populations in a manner that supports long-term and self-perpetuating change and the continued well-being of the vulnerable populations with which FFP works. Embodied in this commitment is the need to understand the operating environment and to strengthen local systems, both formal and informal, to increase the potential for sustained motivation, capacity, resources, and linkages in support of continued food security impacts.

● Develop Context-specific and Tailored Responses

The drivers of food insecurity vary by:

● Level of vulnerability;

● Household capacity;

● Religious and cultural beliefs and taboos;

● Household-level behaviors;

● Livelihoods;

● Access to natural and physical capital;

● Environmental change and shocks; and

● The governance of institutions and service providers that are entrusted to ensure equity.

A thorough analysis of the drivers of food insecurity for each sub-target population is critical to design a more tailored approach specific to each sub-target population.

Whether in design of activities or implementation of interventions, tailored responses— based on thorough contextual analysis and responsiveness to local needs and opportunities—provide greater potential for short-term impact and long-term sustainability than the application of a one-size-fits-all approach. Understanding local https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum context will provide a window not only on drivers of food insecurity but also on opportunities for transformative change that can create growth, strengthen systems, and improve well-being for the most vulnerable.

● Leverage and Link to Strengthen Collective Impact

FFP anticipates activities will strategically and operationally work in line with relevant national and local government policies and systems, leverage and link with other actors working to address the drivers of food insecurity, and create opportunities for positive change. This requires coordination and joint planning with a broad set of stakeholders to ensure activity complementarity, impact, and sustainability and a focused understanding of the potential impact of layering, integrating, and sequencing activities and interventions with other development actors.

● Address Social Dynamics and Local Governance to Strengthen Local Systems

Food insecurity, undernutrition, climate change impacts, and poverty are multi-dimensional challenges requiring a thorough understanding of contributing factors, potential drivers, potential change agents, and existing bottlenecks down to the sub-population level. Social and gender norms, power dynamics, levels of inclusion, and nature of participation within local systems have the potential to undermine development impacts when left unaddressed, or conversely, to provide engines of positive change when enhanced in ways that increase motivation, equity, social cohesion, and transparent socially accountable service delivery. FFP supports partners to work within local systems in order to strengthen human and institutional actors through understanding, addressing, and improving social dynamics and local governance.

● Adaptive Management

FFP activities must take a holistic and forward-looking approach that reflects the social, political, economic, and climatic factors that affect stability, resilience, and growth, and use evidence-based design drawing from best practice to develop appropriate responses. Adaptive management approaches can ensure that data and experiential learning are consistently applied throughout the activity life cycle. These approaches will ensure more effective implementation, quick problem identification, and timely course corrections through feedback loops that examine implementation quality issues, unintended consequences, and incremental change in strengthening resilience capacities. Using current evidence, activity data, and active learning will also enable better examination of the functions, role, and nuance of formal and informal institutions and social dynamics, as well as contingency planning around potential changes in the local context that can inform day-to-day implementation and impact future results. FFP encourages innovative approaches that actively and continually engage community members as well as evidence-based approaches that will move highly vulnerable communities on sustainable paths out of the existing poverty traps in the targeted areas.

● Community Visioning

Given the complex nature of food security challenges in Zimbabwe, it is important to involve communities in problem analysis and solution identification in a sustained, collaborative, and participatory community engagement process. Successful applicants will engage in an in-depth, iterative community engagement process that continues throughout the life of the activity. FFP supports a community visioning process, where communities come together to discuss food, nutrition, and livelihood challenges and identify a range of possible context-specific solutions. FFP envisions a process in which communities work jointly and continually, drawing on local knowledge to identify challenges and opportunities and collectively identify the array of resources needed to address them. The process will allow communities to identify which local interventions they can implement and those that require external support. The visioning process must take into account different genders, ages, and socio-economic groups represented in the communities, thoroughly review the opportunities available to—and unique constraints affecting—those different groups, and identify how these opportunities could benefit all community members, particularly the most vulnerable. There are many approaches to implementing the community-visioning process.

● Social Cohesion

Applicants are encouraged to understand a target area’s social and economic fault lines, and the linkages and bonds within and between communities. Applicants must attempt to deliberately build on existing social cohesion and find opportunities to strengthen these bonds when achieving sustainable development outcomes. Based on past learning and experience, FFP believes that when implementing partners do not support or enhance social cohesion among groups and communities, nor foster psychological safety among members of groups and communities, participant cooperation and investment diminishes. FFP asks applicants to design activities that leverage and enhance social cohesion among community actors spanning socioeconomic strata. Applicants must design interventions that identify, work within, and support existing positive social practices and institutions that strengthen and enhance communal bonds, including enhancing gender equality and drawing on young people’s creative energy and ideas. Applicants might consider the staff skillsets required to effectively implement social cohesion activities and may refer to Psychological Safety as a Driver for Prioritizing Food Security and Resilience.

● Migration

Migration to nearby towns, cities, or other countries is a common livelihood strategy employed by Zimbabweans. Applicants are encouraged to identify the opportunities and challenges presented by this phenomenon among vulnerable households in target communities. Based on this analysis, applicants are encouraged to develop inclusive activity designs that are relevant to communities where out-migration is a preferred livelihood choice. Design approaches must consider both the negative consequences and potential benefits of this trend. This may include livelihood strengthening approaches that assume economic out-migration is an important opportunity to scaffold https://www.agrilinks.org/post/prioritizing-psychological-safety-driver-food-security-and-resilience https://www.agrilinks.org/post/prioritizing-psychological-safety-driver-food-security-and-resilience or support, rather than a constraint that partners might deter or prevent. It may also include research to better understand and harness the flow of remittances to achieve positive development outcomes in target communities.

● Recurrent Shocks, Economic Volatility and High Levels of Acute Food

Insecurity

Applicants must assume that they will be implementing in a context of recurrent climatic shocks, economic volatility, and high levels of acute food insecurity and therefore must prioritize interventions and set targets accordingly. Applicants should anticipate spikes in humanitarian needs in intervention areas over the life of award (LOA) and have strategies and contingency plans in place to adaptively manage activities in response to shocks. The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee estimates that 3.6 million people will experience level three of the Integrated Phase Classification of Acute Food Insecurity or higher levels of food insecurity in the peak of the 2019/2020 lean season— the second-highest level of food insecurity in eight years. Food insecurity is exacerbated by economic stress that has contributed to a rising inflation rate, declines in wage labor, currency shortages, and significant and unpredictable changes in fiscal policy that affects both participants and applicants alike.

● Leveraging Past and Ongoing Food Security Programming and Learning

Applicants should build on previous FFP activity implementation knowledge and activities. Mid-term evaluations (MTEs) were conducted for the two ongoing FFP DFSA activities in Zimbabwe: AMALIMA, which is implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA), and ENSURE, which is implemented by World Vision.

The mid-term evaluation reports are available on the Development Experience Clearinghouse and can be accessed through this link:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MRVJ.pdf. The goals and geographic targeting of these activities do not exactly align with those envisioned in this solicitation.

Nevertheless, the reports contain valuable information on successful and less successful approaches and interventions. Applicants should refer to the MTEs for rich and detailed technical and operational findings and recommendations when preparing applications. Further, CNFA, World Vision, the UN World Food Program, and other past USAID partners have developed a significant number of community-level structures (human capital and physical assets) in each of the target intervention areas. Applicants must consider how to build on, leverage, and strengthen existing structures to achieve goals and outcomes relevant to this RFA.

Past FFP programmatic experience and existing evidence demonstrate that the following developmental approaches will not yield a sustainable impact. Therefore, FFP strongly discourages—and is unlikely to support—the following approaches in any applications under this RFA without a strong justification:

● Weather-based index insurance;

● Energy efficient or improved cook stoves;

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MRVJ.pdf

● Free or highly subsidized agricultural inputs, including seed, fertilizer, implements, tools, and animals;

● Volunteers in place of staff as frontline change agents. Reliance on volunteers to serve as lead mothers or lead farmers is, however, acceptable as these approaches are designed to build the capacity of community members as catalysts for community-based change;

● Exclusive reliance on point-of-use water treatment for provision of safe water;

and

● Community-based early warning systems that rely on data collection and analysis by the communities or project staff.

● Watershed Management

Improving the sustainable management of Zimbabwe’s watersheds in Matabeleland North will result in increased supplies of water and reduced environmental degradation, which is key to increasing economic growth and improving food security. This goal can only be achieved when populations throughout the watershed work together to develop and implement holistic watershed-wide management plans. Given the large size of the watersheds in Matabeleland North and the limited implementation time, FFP envisions efforts that focus on specific and strategically targeted sub-catchments, rather than entire watersheds. FFP encourages applicants to review USAID’s Nature, Wealth, & Power 2.0 (https://rmportal.net/library/content/nwp-2.0) and utilize the lessons learned contained therein to help guide watershed approaches. Such an approach will be more likely to provide a path to broad-based, inclusive, and sustainable rural growth. Part of the approach could use asset creation to stabilize critical slopes, construct erosion prevention structures, and/or construct water-harvesting structures. Any asset creation work must follow FFP food/cash for assets guidance. Overall, the steps taken could include:

● Establish watershed governance bodies

● Build slope stabilization structures

● Improve shock/disaster management systems in coordination with local government and other donors

It is not the intent of FFP to fund work on every watershed or sub-catchment in the targeted areas, but rather to rely on demonstration effects and self-financing and self-transferring interventions that communities can effectively adopt in other watersheds/sub-catchments. Given the limited resources of target communities, applicants may need to support processes of interaction for cross-watershed learning and governance. FFP envisions that applicants will design activities that promote critical watershed management skills and policies to maximize and sustain vital ecosystem services of targeted areas.

● Human-Wildlife Conflict

Applicants must ensure that interventions minimize the opportunity for human-wildlife conflict and maintain or enhance the safety and security of both humans and wildlife.

Applicants must layer and leverage existing local, regional, and national structures and https://rmportal.net/library/content/nwp-2.0 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID-OFDA_for-Work_Guidance_Feb_2018.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID-OFDA_for-Work_Guidance_Feb_2018.pdf systems to assist with preventing and managing human-wildlife conflict. Agricultural interventions must not use or promote any pesticide or chemicals that are commonly used for or associated with the poisoning of wildlife.

5. Authorizing Legislation

The Food for Peace Act, Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1721) General Authority, authorizes the USAID Administrator to establish programs to:

● Provide agricultural commodities to foreign countries on behalf of the people of the United States to address famine and food crises; combat malnutrition, especially in children and mothers;

● Carry out actions that attempt to alleviate the causes of hunger, mortality and morbidity; promote economic and community development;

● Promote food security and support sound environmental practices; carry out feeding interventions; and

● Build resilience to mitigate and prevent food crises and reduce the future need for emergency assistance.

For more information, particularly concerning eligible uses of Section 202(e), and Internal Transport, Storage and Handling (ITSH) funding, please refer to FFPIB 19- 01 Eligible Uses of Section 202(e); Internal Transportation, Storage and Handling;

Inland Freight, Monetization Proceeds; and Community Development Funds for FFP Awards

6. Activity Eligibility Requirements

Any proposed direct distribution of Title II, locally, regionally, internationally procured (LRIP) commodities, cash transfer, and/or food voucher must clearly support interventions that sustainably2 reduce vulnerability to food insecurity. This includes increasing the availability of and access to nutritious food, building incomes/assets to increase yearlong access to a diverse and adequate diet, and/or improving knowledge and behaviors to ensure that food consumption supports health and healthy growth.

7. Award Administration

Awards will be made and administered in accordance with the Food for Peace Act, FAA, as applicable, and U.S. Government regulations. As applicable, the award will be administered under 22 CFR 211, 22 CFR 216, 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 700, USAID Standard Provisions, FFP Information Bulletins, which are available on the USAID website.

Public international organizations (PIO) are subject to different requirements, so USAID reserves the right to make awards to such organizations on different terms and conditions than those made to private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and cooperatives.

2 Sustainability: The degree to which services or processes continue once inputs (funding, materials, training, etc.)

provided by the original source(s) decreases or discontinues.

https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/resources/food-peace-information-bulletins https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/resources/food-peace-information-bulletins https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/resources/food-peace-information-bulletins https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/resources/food-peace-information-bulletins https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/resources/food-peace-information-bulletins

Section II – Federal Award Information

1. Estimate of Funds Available

Subject to the availability of funds under this RFA, FFP plans to make up to two awards.

As described in the Program Description section, FFP intends to award one cooperative agreement of approximately $55 million (over the LOA) for interventions in Manicaland and/or Masvingo, and one cooperative agreement of approximately $75 million (over the LOA) for interventions in Matabeleland North. FFP will fund both awards with Title II resources, for a five-year period.

USAID reserves the right to adjust the number of awards, funding levels, and/or sources of funding. Note that not all funding is interchangeable and some budget adjustments may need to take place. FFP will notify successful applicants of any changes or updates accordingly.

2. Anticipated Start Date and Performance Period

The anticipated start date of the new award(s) will be on or about October 1, 2020. The award(s) will be issued for a performance period of five years during which the applicant will refine the activity design during an initial refinement, implementation, and piloting period; and implement the activity with robust adaptive management and learning following the initial refinement. FFP anticipates the Zimbabwe FY 2020 DFSA(s) will use the R&I model to continue co-creation throughout the award. (See Appendix III.)

3. Substantial Involvement

In accordance with the ADS 303.3.11, a cooperative agreement, as distinguished from a grant, provides for substantial involvement between the Federal awarding Agency and the recipient in carrying out the activity contemplated by the Federal award (The examples of substantial involvement below are a guide, not a checklist. The Agreement Officer must determine the appropriate level of substantial involvement based on the programmatic requirements of the award and include only those elements of substantial involvement as needed. Examples of potential areas of substantial involvement during performance include the following:

● Approval of the recipient’s implementation plans during performance.

● Ability to immediately halt an activity if the recipient does not meet detailed performance specifications (for example, construction specifications).

● Review and approval of one stage of work, before work can begin on a subsequent stage during the period covered by the cooperative agreement.

● Review and approval of substantive provisions of proposed sub-awards or contracts (see definitions in 2 CFR 200). These would be provisions that go beyond existing policies on Federal review of recipient procurement standards and sole-source procurement.

● Involvement in the selection of key recipient personnel.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303.pdf

● USAID and recipient collaboration or joint participation, such as when the recipient’s successful accomplishment of program objectives would benefit from USAID’s technical knowledge.

● USAID monitoring to permit specific kinds of direction or redirection of the work because of the interrelationships with other projects or activities.

● Direct USAID operational involvement or participation to ensure compliance with statutory requirements such as civil rights, environmental protection, and provisions for the handicapped that exceeds USAID’s role that is normally part of the general statutory requirements understood in advance of the award.

● Highly prescriptive USAID requirements established prior to award that limit the recipient’s discretion with respect to the scope of services offered, organizational structure, staffing, mode of operation, and other management processes, coupled with close monitoring or operational involvement during performance over and above the normal exercise of Federal stewardship responsibilities to ensure compliance with these requirements.

For specifics and additional detail, please refer to ADS 303.3.11 - Substantial Involvement and Cooperative Agreements.

4. Authorized Geographic Code

The anticipated authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under the prospective award(s) is 935; USAID reserves the right to modify this.

5. Nature of the Relationship between USAID and the Awardee

The principal purpose of the relationship with the awardee under the subject award is to transfer funds to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation of the activities as described in the RFA, which is authorized by federal statute. The successful awardee will be responsible for ensuring the achievement of the award objectives and the efficient and effective administration of the award through the application of sound management practices. The awardee will assume responsibility for administering federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, award objectives, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.

6. Assistance Awards

USAID may (a) reject any or all applications, (b) accept applications for reasons other than cost, or (c) accept more than one application. USAID intends to award predominantly cooperative agreements, but reserves the right to award any other form of assistance agreement. USAID may waive informalities and minor irregularities in applications received.

USAID may award the resulting assistance award(s) based on initial applications received, without discussions, negotiations, and/or oral presentations. Therefore, each initial application must contain the applicant's best terms from a technical and cost https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303.pdf standpoint. However, as part of its evaluation process, USAID may elect to discuss technical, cost, or other pre-award issues with one or more applicants. Alternatively, USAID may proceed with award selection based on its evaluation of initial applications received, use an alternative process (e.g., keep or drop oral presentations), and/or commence negotiations solely with one applicant.

Section III – Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

To be considered for a Title II-funded award, the applicant must be a PVO, PVO consortium, or an organization designated by USAID as a PIO. PVOs may include U.S.

and non-U.S. NGOs as defined in the Food for Peace Act. Per the Food for Peace Act, universities are not eligible to apply as primes for any Title II-funded activity.

Universities can be sub-awardees or members of a consortium at the discretion of the prime applicant.

In the case of a consortium, the applicant must be the consortium lead and must identify any other members of the consortium or individuals tied to the implementation of the activity as described in the application, along with all sub-awardees. The respective roles of any other members of the consortium or individuals, including all sub-awardees, must be described and separate detailed budgets must be attached for each. For more information, see Section IV. Application and Submission Information, I. Application Format, d). Management and Staffing.

2. New Partners and Local Organizations

USAID encourages applications from potential new partners (i.e., those who have not received any USAID funding previously) and local organizations.

Note that sub-awardees may be on more than one application to this request, and applicants may sign non-exclusive letters of commitment with sub-awardees (international and local partners), if applicable.

3. Cost Share

Cost share is not required. However, if an applicant proposes cost share and receives an award, cost share will be incorporated into the award budget. (Note that since cost share is not required, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.306, it will not be used as a separate factor during the merit review of applications). Cost share will not be considered in the merit review since cost share is not required.

4. Limit on Number of Applications

Each applicant is limited to one application per intervention area (Manicaland and/or Masvingo, and Matabeleland North) for this RFA. An applicant may also be a sub-awardee on applications submitted by other organizations.

Section IV – Application and Submission Information

Applications must be submitted via email to FY20-DFSA-RFA-Zimbabwe@usaid.gov.

Note that emails including all attachments must not exceed 25 megabytes (MB). Please therefore use multiple emails or zip files if needed. The Apparently Successful Applicant(s) will be invited to upload their final application documents to the FFP Partner Portal.

1. Application Format

The application must be specific, complete, and concise. FFP will not consider applications that do not meet the requirements of this RFA. The application is divided into the following sections, with the maximum number of pages given per section, excluding the table of contents, but including any endnotes and/or footnotes, as follows:

● Cover Page (1 page, see requirements in paragraph a)

● Executive Summary (2 pages maximum, see requirements in paragraph b)

● Activity Design (45 pages maximum, see requirements in paragraph c)

● Management and Staffing (12 pages maximum, see requirements in paragraph d)

● Cost Application (no page limit, see requirements in paragraph e)

● Environmental Compliance (see requirements in paragraph f)

● Annexes (see paragraph g)

If submissions exceed the page number maximum, FFP will only review the pages up to the limit, and pages exceeding the maximum will not be considered.

a) Cover Page (1 page)

The cover page must include:

● Name of the applicant’s organization;

● Name and title of the organization’s representative who has signatory authority and authority to submit the application;

● Name, title, and contact information of the organization’s point of contact with whom USAID will coordinate on matters related to the application (if different from the organization’s representative with signatory authority and authority to submit the application). Contact information must include mailing address, email, and telephone number;

● Title II food commodity(ies) request, in metric tons (MT) (rounded to the nearest

10 MT);

● Total funds requested (in U.S.