IDEAL FINAL RFA-FFP-17-000005.pdf

Issue Date: July 6, 2017

Deadline for Questions/Clarifications: July 14, 2017, 11:59 PM EDT

Closing Date: August 9, 2017

Closing Time: 11:59 AM EDT

CFDA Number: 98.005

Subject: Request for Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-FFP-17-000005

Program Title: Implementer–led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning (IDEAL)

Ladies/Gentlemen:

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of Food for Peace (FFP) is seeking applications from qualified institutions to fund a program entitled Implementer-led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning (IDEAL) through the award of one Leader with Associates

(LWA) Cooperative Agreement (also referred to herein as “Leader Award.”) See Section C of this RFA for eligibility requirements.

Subject to the availability of funds, the award of one “Leader Award” will be made to the responsible applicant(s) whose application(s) best meets the objectives of this RFA and the selection criteria contained herein. While one award is anticipated as a result of this RFA, USAID reserves the right to fund any or none of the applications submitted. Funding details are provided in Section B of the RFA.

Eligible organizations interested in submitting an application are encouraged to read this RFA thoroughly to understand the type of program sought, application submission requirements and evaluation process.

To be eligible for award, the applicant must provide all information as required in this RFA and meet eligibility standards in Section C. This RFA is posted on www.grants.gov, and may be amended. Potential applicants should regularly check the website to ensure they have the latest information pertaining to this RFA. Applicants will need to have available or download the

Adobe program to their computers in order to view and save Adobe forms properly. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the RFA has been received from the internet in its entirety and USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from the transmission or conversion process. If you have difficulty registering on www.grants.gov or accessing the RFA, http://www.grants.gov/ please contact the Grants.gov Helpdesk at 1-800-518-4726 or via email at support@grants.gov for technical assistance.

The successful Applicant will be responsible for ensuring the achievement of the program objectives. Please read each section of the RFA.

Please send any questions to the point(s) of contact identified in section D. The deadline for questions is shown above.

Issuance of this RFA does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government nor does it commit the Government to pay for any costs incurred in preparation or submission of 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.

Thank you for your interest in USAID programs.

Sincerely, Matthew Nims

Acting Director, Office of Food for Peace

Agreement Officer, Title II Food for Peace Act mailto:support@grants.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Section A – Program Description

Section B –Award Information

Section C – Eligibility Information

Section D – Application and Submission Information

Section E – Application Review Information

Section F – Award and Administration Information

Section G – Agency Contacts

Section H – Other Information Page 33

Annex 1 – FFP 2016-2025 Food Assistance and Food Security

Strategy

Annex 2 – History of FFP Support to Implementer-Focused

Collaborative Learning and Capacity Strengthening

ABREVIATIONS AND ACCROYNMS USED IN THIS RFA

AO Agreement Officer

AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative

BS/MP Branding Strategy and Marking Plan

DCHA Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance

DUNS Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System

EDT Eastern Daylight Time

FACG Food Aid Consultative Group

FFP Office of Food for Peace

FFP Act Food for Peace Act

FFPIB Food for Peace Information Bulletin

FSN Network Food Security and Nutrition Network ICB Institutional Capacity Building

IDEAL Implementer-Led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning

IR Intermediate Result

LWA Leader with Associates

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

POC Point of Contact

PIO Public International Organization

PVO Private Voluntary Organization

R&I Refine and Implement

RF Results Framework

RFA Request for Applications

SAM System for Award Management

SO Strategic Objective

TOC Theory of Change

TOPS Technical and Operational Performance Support Program

USAID United States Agency for International Development

U.S. United States

WFP World Food Program

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

SECTION A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1. Authorizing Legislation

The authority for this RFA is found in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including Section 103 which authorizes development assistance for agricultural, rural development and nutrition, and

Section 491 which authorizes international disaster assistance to meet emergency food needs, as well as Title II of the Food for Peace Act (FFP Act), which authorizes the provision of agricultural commodities to meet emergency and nonemergency food needs, including by funding eligible organizations to assist in establishing and enhancing programs, and improving and implementing methodologies for food aid programs.

2. Award Administration

Awards will be made and administered in accordance with the FFP Act, the Foreign Assistance

Act, as applicable, and USG regulations. As applicable, the award will be administered under 22 CFR 211, 22 CFR 216, 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 700, USAID Standard Provisions, and FFP Information

Bulletins which are available on the USAID website. Notwithstanding the foregoing, because intergovernmental organizations are subject to different requirements, USAID reserves the right to make awards to such organizations on different terms and conditions than those made to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives.

3. FFP Background

a. FFP History

Established by the Agricultural Trade and Development Assistance Act in 1954, and situated in

USAID’s DCHA Bureau, FFP is the United States (U.S.) Government’s primary food assistance program, and has been combating hunger and malnutrition among vulnerable groups around the world for more than 60 years. Congress authorizes the majority of FFP resources through the

FFP Act. Since 2010, FFP has received additional funding flexibility through the Congressional authorization of cash resources for local and regional procurement of in-kind commodities, cash transfers or vouchers for food, as well as complementary programming addressing the drivers of food insecurity. Between 2010 and 2015, FFP programs reached an average 52 million people in 50 countries per year.

b. FFP Emergency and Development Activities

FFP works to reduce hunger and malnutrition and assure that adequate, safe and nutritious food is available, accessible to, and well-utilized by all individuals at all times to support a healthy and productive life.

FFP programs approximately $2 billion annually to meet both chronic and acute food needs in vulnerable populations. FFP is unique in working in both emergency and non-emergency contexts to improve food security and nutrition. Emergency and recovery programs comprise https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/food-assistance/guidance/food-peace-information-bulletins https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/food-assistance/guidance/food-peace-information-bulletins

80 percent of total spending, and the remainder supports broad-based resilience-focused development programs assisting chronically food insecure populations.

Through short-term emergency activities, FFP provides food assistance to save lives, reduce suffering, and support the early recovery of populations affected by both acute and chronic emergencies. FFP responds to crises where the food supply is severely disrupted and populations lack access to sufficient food through normally available means (e.g., production, barter, purchase in markets, etc.) Such crises may involve drought, floods, earthquakes, and/or civil conflict. In addition to resource transfers to help populations meet immediate food needs, FFP emergency programs may be accompanied by complementary programming that has a direct impact on food security and nutrition outcomes.

Through longer-term development food security activities, FFP works to reduce hunger and extreme poverty in vulnerable populations by addressing the underlying causes of chronic food insecurity. 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 two and pregnant and lactating women;

and mitigating disaster impact through early warning and community preparedness activities.

Development activities are intended to strengthen resilience in populations vulnerable to 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.

FFP’s development food security activities contain two unique features that strive to increase the ‘fit to context’ of all programmatic interventions:

Each applicant is asked to develop a comprehensive theory of change for the proposed project and to update as needed throughout implementation. The theory of change is expected to describe the hypothesized series of changes that are expected to occur in a given context as the result of specific interventions and to make explicit how outputs from the proposed interventions are anticipated to interact with other concurrent interventions and contextual conditions to stimulate or enable a series of outcomes that will ultimately lead to the achievement of desired objective(s).

FFP has been piloting a new approach known as Refine and Implement (R&I) in its development food security awards. R&I includes two stages: (1) a refinement period during the first year in which successful applicants (i.e., new awardees) will carry out pre-implementation studies, strengthen local partnership, undertake the preparation for implementation (e.g., hiring, training, procurements, etc.), and refine the activity theory of change, followed by (2) the implementation of programmatic interventions beginning at the onset of the second year. This pilot will allow highly successful activities to be extended and continue for up to five years past the traditional five-year development food security activity timeframe.

c. FFP Strategic Priorities

In FY 2017, FFP launched a new Food Assistance and Food Security Strategy 2016-2025 which lays out new priorities for the future around sustainability, systems approaches, and a new set https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/FFP-Strategy-FINAL%2010.5.16.pdf of cross cutting issues addressing gender equity and youth empowerment, social cohesion and social accountability. The Strategy serves as a broad framework for the capacities and capabilities of FFP and its implementing partners. See Annex 1.

The FFP Strategy also contributes to USAID’s mission statement, DCHA Bureau’s Strategic

Objectives, and a number of critical Agency policies and strategies, including the USG Global

Food Security Strategy, 2017-2021 and the USAID Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy 2014-2025.

See Annex 1.

4. Purpose and Scope of IDEAL

a. Intended Purpose

IDEAL is intended to improve the food security and nutrition of vulnerable populations through improving the design, implementation and overall effectiveness of development and emergency food security activities funded by FFP. This quality improvement effort is intended to address knowledge and capacity gaps in the food security and nutrition implementing community, and support the application of evidence and learning through knowledge sharing and peer learning efforts, capacity strengthening, stakeholder consultation, a grants component to support new knowledge and innovation, and a specialized focus on the generation and use of evidence and learning. IDEAL will seek to understand and meet the knowledge needs of implementing partner organizations throughout the program cycle through participatory approaches rather than top-down donor directives.

In a time of unprecedented food security and nutrition needs, the demands on limited resources are growing and with them, the responsibility to use those resources as effectively as possible. FFP believes that this collaborative learning mechanism will be fundamental to effective and accountable resource management, creating strong knowledge systems working across geographical and organizational boundaries, to improve understanding of what is working and what is not, while elevating critical findings, whether from experience or rigorous evidence, as part of a critical feedback cycle for improved design and implementation. The mechanism will work to improve linkages that enable collaborative, coordinated and efficient action around common goals. As a voice to the entire food security and nutrition implementing community, the mechanism will facilitate standard-setting and strengthen the capacity of the community as a whole, particularly around essential elements of quality programming, such as strengthening resilience capacities, improving targeting and context-specific responses, and striving for more sustainable change.

With the launch of the new FFP 2016-2025 Strategy (see Annex 1), this award will create an opportunity for current and prospective implementing partners to better align themselves with

FFP’s strategic priorities around improving the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable individuals and households while fostering transformative, systemic and sustainable change in communities and institutions. This mechanism will create an opportunity for partners to take ownership of the operational realities these new strategic priorities will bring, along with a forum to identify for themselves those sectors and intervention areas where additional capacity strengthening or implementation-level guidance is required. FFP envisions the IDEAL mechanism to be a catalyst https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USG-Global-Food-Security-Strategy-2016.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USG-Global-Food-Security-Strategy-2016.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USAID_Nutrition_Strategy_5-09_508.pdf and facilitator for a community of practice of food security and nutrition stakeholders engaged in reflection, learning and knowledge application to improve the quality and effectiveness of activity implementation within this new framework.

b. Anticipated Program Pathways

Lessons learned from a long history of FFP support to implementer-focused collaborative learning (see Annex 2), as well as a robust consultation process over the course of the IDEAL activity design1 has highlighted broad consensus amongst stakeholders over successful past and valuable new approaches to improve knowledge, capacity and practice for improved food security and nutrition activity implementation:

A broad and inclusive community of practice should continue to serve as a successful public face and overall umbrella under which stakeholders can work collaboratively, inclusively, and across organizational boundaries to identify and apply promising practices, and emerging research and knowledge, as well as to address implementation obstacles and capacity gaps. This community of practice should exist not only as a digital presence able to engage participants across geographic divides, but also, importantly, as a mechanism for facilitating in-person interaction, to deepen the level of meaningful dialogue, exchange and collaborative problem solving and innovation. The community of practice should build on the knowledge assets, materials, processes and audiences built up through seven years of FFP investment in the

Technical and Operational Performance Support Program (TOPS) and the community of practice TOPS established, the Food Security and Nutrition Network (FSN Network). IDEAL should work with these assets, making adaptations, improvements and adjustments as appropriate.

Stakeholder input has pointed to the need to move beyond the current FSN Network’s primary focus on implementation in development settings to also more substantively address emergency-focused actors, issues and capacities. This will help to bring IDEAL more in line with the allocation of FFP resources at the implementation level. There is also a need to extend the reach of the community of practice regionally and within priority countries,2 to be able to harness and strengthen the knowledge and capacity of local implementing partners and other stakeholders, and to better capture and apply field-level learning and encourage cross-organizational collaboration throughout the program cycle. Finally, there may be an opportunity to identify new ways to engage with public international organizations (PIOs) such as the World

Food Program (WFP), other USAID Offices, Centers or Bureaus, or academic research partners both as participants and as suppliers of important content.

In planning for this procurement, FFP engaged in a number of internal and external consultation efforts to build upon the findings of the TOPS midterm evaluation. These included in-person consultation meetings for 1)

FFP staff, 2) for participants in a quarterly Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) meeting, and 3) for members of the TOPS Program Advisory Committee (an open-membership steering committee of representatives of the

FFP implementing and support communities). FFP also conducted a number of global online surveys sent out broadly to both internal and external stakeholders.

Priority countries are loosely defined as those countries where FFP is currently operating with development food security activities and/or large-scale or long-term emergency food security activities, or other countries prioritized through dialogue with FFP over the course of IDEAL implementation.

Key program pathways under this community of practice should include, at a minimum:

Technical capacity strengthening: This includes building on the strong foundation

TOPS established around traditional in-person training in core technical areas, moving beyond direct delivery of individual training courses to, instead, create and strengthen more self-sustaining systems of knowledge uptake and application within the implementer community. This will help ensure skills around technical, strategic and management approaches are not simply passed on to individual cohorts of training participants, but also applied and rolled out throughout organizations, within consortia and to local partners. This should include a focused and vigorous look at current and best practice around transfer of technical training and tools onward into the workplace, while promising approaches might include a stronger focus on training of trainer approaches, on development of user-friendly and widely available training materials and tools designed for adoption and use by other stakeholders, and identification of and increasing access to relevant high quality tools and trainings developed by other local, regional and international networks and institutions.

More sustainable technical capacity strengthening could also be accomplished through improving partner skills in innovative and high quality approaches to capacity strengthening, to enable those partners to take on greater responsibility at the organizational level to strengthen their own capacity in core focus areas. New approaches may also involve piloting and building skills around a broader and more diverse set of capacity strengthening methods, including virtual office hours, mentoring, structured site visits or direct technical assistance made available on an equitable basis to current FFP development or emergency food security activity Awardees.

Peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and collaboration: Creating dynamic, cross-organizational feedback loops on what is working and what is not in food security program implementation remains a fundamental role for the community of practice. The exchange of information, knowledge and solutions by and for implementing partners across geographic areas, organizations, sectors, and programmatic functions serves as a multiplier effect for program adaptation and improvements and the roll-out of relevant program learning on a global basis. Web and digital platforms should build on the fsnnetwork.org website established under TOPS as well as other capacities, and adapt these for the future as appropriate. The web presence should be solidly anchored by dialogue-focused and participatory in-person events that can provide food security stakeholders the chance to share implementation-focused experiential learning, adapt and apply promising practices, and understand the implications of new evidence in local contexts. Such peer-to-peer efforts should also strive to encourage collaboration and coordination of efforts at the field level where possible. These events may take different forms at different stages of the program cycle, but should reach implementers not only in Washington, DC but also in the field where work is being carried out. Under IDEAL, there are opportunities to further expand the reach of knowledge sharing and collaboration efforts, with key stakeholder groups such as emergency-focused implementing partner staff, academic researchers, regional networks, and international organizations playing larger roles as participants and as subject matter experts.

Small grants program: Offering current and potential FFP partner organizations access to resources to support the design, testing and sharing of promising practices, tools, guidance and skill building puts an opportunity for problem solving and innovation into the hands of those on the front lines, experiencing implementation challenges and witnessing the emergence of promising new approaches. The successful work of the TOPS small grants program should be enhanced through deliberately linking the grants program to relevant focus areas such as FFP’s new strategic priorities, the emerging FFP learning agenda,3 or needs identified and prioritized through inclusive consultations within the community of practice. A promising area of potential growth may also be in using the grants program as a deliberate mechanism for increased partnership between implementers and researchers, to strengthen respective capacities around implementation-level field pilots and operations research.

Stakeholder consultations: Enabling the implementing partner community to engage with and provide direct feedback to FFP around key issues that impact the achievement of results, provides an opportunity to bring to light implementation experience, operational needs, unintended consequences, and areas where adaptations could reduce roadblocks or create new opportunities. Consultations may look at the operationalization of new strategic and programmatic focus areas, the application of emerging evidence and learning, and updates to FFP guidance and policy; they may also provide a platform for stocktaking over past efforts to gain important implementer feedback on where policy, guidance or technical approaches could be improved for smoother implementation, stronger results and fewer unintended consequences.

c. Anticipated Focus Areas

Under the FFP Strategy 2016-2025, FFP’s work remains founded on the core concept that food and nutrition security is an outcome of adequate and stable food availability, access and utilization. As such, key sectors such as agriculture, livelihoods, nutrition, WASH, natural resource management, disaster risk reduction, infrastructure and other traditional domains of

FFP programming remain as important as ever. Similarly, while flexibility to use cash resources has increased since 2010 and has allowed FFP a fuller range of programmatic response options, in-kind commodities are still a critical resource at FFP’s disposal; management of those commodities remains an essential underlying capacity for successful food assistance program delivery. FFP made significant investments, through TOPS, over a seven-year period, in strengthening implementer capacity in many of these core areas, and it is expected that in those areas, the implementing partner community is well equipped to take ownership of their own direct capacity strengthening. However, there is still an opportunity for IDEAL to build on the capacity strengthening momentum – and materials - developed under TOPS, while also continuing to engage participants and subject matter experts in other program pathways to keep dialogue and learning in these key sectors alive.

3 The FFP learning agenda is designed to be a broad framework identifying priority questions and key lines of inquiry the answers to which will help FFP and the broader food security community to strengthen programmatic approaches. A consultative process in FY17 is expected to result in guidance available to FFP stakeholders in early FY18.

Stakeholder consultations in the design of this mechanism pointed overwhelmingly to the need for strengthened capacity and improved practices for the generation, analysis, sharing and application of knowledge and data. IDEAL is intended to create opportunities across organizational boundaries for more dynamic systems of evidence and learning which will result in improved design and implementation. This might include efforts to increase capacity in core skill areas in data collection, including third party monitoring, post distribution monitoring, and harmonization of indicators across activities in emergency settings; or assessing institutional capacity, working with sustainability benchmarks or measuring incremental but important systems level change. IDEAL should also explore best practice and capacity strengthening in formative research and context assessment, as well as operations research and post-project evaluation.

Within the food security and nutrition stakeholder community, gaps remain in both capacity and practice around data analysis and sharing of the knowledge generated in ways that ensure that the implications of survey, assessment and research findings can be understood, discussed and adaptations considered and applied, as appropriate, within and across activities and within and across organizations.

Resilience has been an increasingly important concept in FFP programs since the 2006 FFP

Strategy outlined the importance of addressing risk and vulnerability across multiple domains to reduce food insecurity. As the resilience concept has gained prominence at USAID and internationally, FFP’s work has been foundational in operationalizing context-specific, multi-sectoral development programs that strengthen resilience through integrating, layering and sequencing interventions to reduce vulnerability and strengthen absorptive and adaptive capacities, while accelerating growth and transformative change. Increasingly, resilience has become a core concept in emergency interventions, as a process driving individual, household and, where possible, systems-level change that reduces vulnerability and enables development footholds that may lead to longer-term, more sustainable change. Improving the depth and quality of resilience programming will require improvements in underlying capacities such as context analysis, capacity assessment, resilience measurement, and collaborative design, implementation and learning.

FFP has long been striving to understand and articulate best and promising practices around improving the sustainability of impacts achieved through development food security activities.

With the completion of the FFP-funded and Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance-managed

Exit Strategies work, there is a wealth of both generalizable and context-specific lessons and recommendations that can be applied and tested in program implementation. The conceptual framework for sustainability developed through this work, identifying the importance of sustained resources, motivation, capacity and, sometimes, linkages, provides a new lens through which local systems can be better understood, and strengthened program planning, analysis and measurement can be applied. As FFP works to better understand the incremental changes that lead to sustainability through strengthened systems, improved dialogue and collaborative learning within the implementing partner community on how best to incentivize, measure and reward such change is essential. Implementing partners are a rich source of peer learning around the best approaches to enable sustained impacts, depending on context, while there are http://www.fantaproject.org/research/exit-strategies-ffp opportunities to integrate the latest thinking in systems strengthening to implementation-focused design, theories of change, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

Social and behavior change (SBC) remains an enduring challenge in FFP programs in both emergency and development contexts. Despite well intended efforts, SBC programming has achieved limited success in driving sustained change. Many SBC approaches in FFP focus on improving individual knowledge with limited attention to broader contextual factors that influence change and its eventual impact on improved food security, including cultural norms, gender dynamics and broader societal change. With a new focus on systems and sustainability, there is a need for SBC approaches that leverage existing community resources and networks, and move beyond “messaging” to catalyze lasting change.

The FFP 2016-2025 Strategy particularly highlights the need for continued focus on gender equity and how this can be better operationalized in the context of food security and nutrition implementation. The Strategy also calls for a new focus on empowering youth, increasing social cohesion, and strengthening social accountability, approaches that have the potential to mitigate or prevent conflict, reduce fragility, and address root issues impeding the achievement of food security. Each of these focus areas require new thinking and each pose specific challenges in terms of assessment and analysis, integration into theories of change, and measurement of impact.

The Strategy also calls for increased attention on other core approaches, including cross-organizational and cross-team design, implementation and learning, working with a theory of change and adaptive management.

d. Guiding Principles

Participatory and implementer-led approaches

While the ultimate goal of this activity is improved food security and nutrition for vulnerable populations, the direct beneficiary of this assistance mechanism is the broad community of current and potential FFP implementing partners. It is anticipated that to best serve the needs of this broad community, IDEAL will work through participatory and stakeholder-guided processes to determine needs, respond to demand, and prioritize action that will improve the quality of development and emergency food security activity design and implementation.

Adaptive management

FFP emergency and development food security activities are designed and implemented against a backdrop of emerging evidence, ongoing program learning, and often-changing international, national and local contexts. This calls for an adaptive management system for IDEAL that will allow for changes in emphasis over time, whether in terms of staffing and capacity needs, the mix of interventions, priority sectors or approaches, and/or geographic focus to better meet emerging stakeholder needs and capitalize on new approaches and new opportunities.

Focus on networking and complementarities

To enable a strong, sustainable and far-reaching community of practice, it is important to recognize, leverage and promote the role, value and knowledge assets of other networks and communities of practice, particularly across the many sectoral, analytical and management focus areas relevant to FFP emergency and development programming. Helping to raise awareness of and improve access to a diverse set of knowledge and networking resources beyond IDEAL can bring robust and cost-effective returns in terms of synergies around institutional capacity strengthening and program improvements.

Sustained impacts

FFP’s commitment to fostering more sustained results applies not only to field implementation but to the IDEAL activity as well. From the launch of IDEAL, throughout implementation, strategies should be developed and updated to ensure that dedicated sources of sustained resources, capacities, motivation and linkages will be developed, where appropriate, independent of FFP funding, so that program pathways for sustained implementation quality will be maintained, where possible, without additional donor resources after the end of the award.

e. Key stakeholders

There are several key stakeholder groups who are vital for the success of IDEAL. The nature and level of engagement with each will vary.

FFP: As the funder of IDEAL, FFP will oversee and manage IDEAL administratively, technically and financially. FFP will provide input on relevant food security focus areas, capacity strengthening topics, emerging needs, and possible consultation topics that are of global interest or that will contribute to its critical functions of global leadership, research and evaluation, and technical support to the field. FFP will also review and critique products and services developed by IDEAL, and participate in the selection and approval of sub-grants.

External experts and advisors: It is expected that IDEAL will engage and routinely consult with international and national organizations that are recognized leaders in food assistance and food security. This might include representatives of FFP implementing partner organizations, academic researchers, policymakers and relevant offices and Bureaus in USAID including the

Center for Resilience, the Bureau for Food Security, the Nutrition Division in the Bureau for

Global Health, as well as offices in the DCHA Bureau, such as the Office of U.S. global

Assistance, the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, or the Center of Excellence for

Democracy, Human Rights and Governance. This might also include representatives from relevant PIOs such as WFP or UNICEF, or from other U.S. Government Agencies such as the

U.S. Department of Agriculture. These specialists across a wide range of technical and analytical areas can serve as subject matter experts for knowledge sharing or capacity strengthening efforts, as well as serving as advisors on emerging program priorities for IDEAL.

Participants in the community of practice: IDEAL will develop products and services for audiences whose actions affect the quantity, quality and range of FFP emergency and development food security activities. This includes program development and technical specialists from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and from relevant implementation-focused PIOs, as well as representatives from academic and research organizations and private sector actors working in the food assistance and food security sphere. Finding ways to engage and sustain engagement with local actors is key. Levels of participation will vary across roles, geography, level of expertise and time availability. Program pathways and focus content should accommodate a broad range of interests, expertise, and engagement.

Collaborating partners: A wide range of existing networks, communities of practice and donor funded collaboration and/or knowledge management mechanisms exist in areas relevant to food security and nutrition program implementation. Whether at the global level, funded through USAID, or taking the form of food security or nutrition working groups at the national or regional level, these should be thought of as collaborators and opportunities for joint action and coordinated efforts. Primary collaborating partners should include the BFS knowledge management mechanism Knowledge Driven Agricultural Development, the Center for

Resilience buy-in to the TOPS mechanism, and the Cash Learning Partnership. In addition, other key collaboration partners should include the FFP-funded Famine Early Warning Systems

Network which conducts food security analyses and enhances understanding of food security causality; and the follow-on to the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance activity which supports FFP’s analytic agenda through large-scale research and development of guidance.

SECTION B. AWARD INFORMATION

1. Leader Award

This RFA is being issued with the intention of awarding one LWA Award (Leader Award) covering a specified worldwide activity, as described in the program description in Section

A of this RFA. The Leader Award will be a Cooperative Agreement, which will extend over a period of five years. The Leader Award will be made pursuant to this RFA to the

Applicant whose application conforming to this RFA offers the greatest value to the U.S.

Government.

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 a cooperative agreement 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) on the basis of 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 standpoint. As part of its evaluation process, however, 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.

2. Associate Awards

Subsequent Associate Awards may be awarded by FFP or other USAID Operating Units, subject to the availability of funding. No further competition or waiver of competition is required for any Associate Agreements awarded within the terms of the Leader Award.

Missions or other USAID Offices may award their own Associate Awards without further competition.

Each Associate Award is a separate Assistance Agreement by FFP or other USAID Operating

Unit, as applicable, and awarded to the Leader Award Recipient to support a distinct local, regional or global activity that fits within the scope of the broad worldwide Program

Description of the Leader Agreement.

An Associate Award may be a grant or a cooperative agreement, independent of whether the

Leader Award is a grant or cooperative agreement. An Associate Cooperative Agreement must spell out the terms of any substantial involvement. Each Associate Award will determine its own cost-share needs, if any, regardless of the level of cost-share identified under the Leader

Award. Under individual Associate Awards, the need for cost-sharing will be individually determined by each Mission or Bureau for its respective program. Associate Awards will not contain separate standard provisions. Instead, they will be subject to the provisions of the

Leader Award.

Associate Awards may be awarded for an initial five-year period. They may be issued through the final day of the period of performance of the Leader Award. Associate Awards may be extended for a cumulative term of up to ten years, but in no event may Associate Awards extend for more than five years past the expiration of the Leader Award. In no case may an

Associate Award extend more than five years into the future at any given time. The Leader

Award will not be closed out until all the Associate Awards have been completed.

Associate Awards must support Section A. Program Description in this RFA. Associate Awards are separate and distinct grants or cooperative agreements and are not to be confused with small grants provided by the Leader under the Leader Award or any Associate Awards.

The selection of countries and/or substantive areas for the Associate Awards will be based on demand from FFP or other USAID Operating Units as appropriate. The length of activities may vary. Activities may range from performing basic assessments to implementing fully developed technical interventions that support quality improvements in emergency and/or development food security programming.

For more information about LWA Awards, please refer to ADS Chapter 303, section 303.3.26.

3. Estimate of Funds Available

Subject to the availability of funds under this RFA, FFP anticipates providing approximately $30 million over five years for the IDEAL Leader Award Cooperative Agreement for DCHA/FFP.

This will include any funds designated by the Leader for small grants to development and/or emergency food security activity implementers, researchers or other relevant stakeholders.

FFP or other USAID Operating Units may provide additional funding for Associate Awards under IDEAL. FFP has established a ceiling of $95 million for the overall IDEAL LWA mechanism which will encompass funding for the Leader Award as well as any future Associate

Awards. Whether or to what degree this ceiling will be reached, and the number and size of future Associate Awards will be a function of demand and subject to the availability of funding.

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. Successful applicants will be notified of any changes or updates accordingly.

4. Anticipated Start Date and Performance Period

The anticipated start date of the new award(s) will be on or about September 2017. The period of performance will be approximately five (5) years from the date of award, subject to the availability of funding.

5. Authorized Geographic Code

The anticipated authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under the prospective award is 937. USAID reserves the right to modify this.

6. Substantial Involvement

During the life of the award, FFP’s development and emergency activities will be designed in the context of the FFP 2016-2025 Strategy. Implementation of these activities and, therefore, the practices and capacities prioritized by the implementing partner community through IDEAL, should be reflective of this broad strategy. It will be important for FFP to be substantively involved in elements of IDEAL to ensure that Agency knowledge and expertise can be appropriately leveraged and synergies created between implementation of IDEAL and the broader implementation of the FFP strategy.

The intended purpose of the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR’s) involvement during the life of the award is to assist the recipient in achieving the supported objectives of the agreement. USAID’s elements of substantial involvement are limited to those found below:

a. Approval of the Recipient's Implementation Plans

FFP will require approval of recipient’s workplans annually, to ensure appropriate timelines and implementation planning aligned with FFP’s broad strategic priorities, partnership opportunities and activity purpose.

b. Approval of Specified Key Personnel

For those deemed essential to the successful implementation of the award, FFP will approve up to five key personnel as well as changes to those personnel over the life of the award. This will ensure strategic alignment with priority core capacities and focus areas over the life of the award.

c. Agency and Recipient Collaboration or Joint Participation

The recipient's successful accomplishment of the activity purpose will benefit from FFP strategic, policy and technical knowledge. This will include:

(1) Collaborative involvement in selection of advisory committee members to provide advice to the recipient on programmatic and technical issues. FFP anticipates participating as a member of this committee as well.

(2) Concurrence on the substantive provisions of sub-awards. 2 CFR 200.308 already requires the recipient to obtain the Agreement Officer’s (AO’s) prior approval for the sub-award, transfer, or contracting out of any work under an award. In addition, FFP will be substantially involved in participation on technical review panels for sub-grants and selection of the final list of applications selected for funding.

(3) Approval of the recipient's monitoring and evaluation plans to ensure appropriate measures are in place to capture progress in expanding the knowledge base and strengthening the capacity of the implementer community.

(4) Monitor to authorize specified kinds of direction or redirection because of interrelationships with other projects. All such activities will be included in the program description, negotiated in the budget, and made part of the award.

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

Cooperative Agreements.

Section C – Eligibility Information

1. Eligibility Requirements

To be considered for a Title II funded award, the applicant must be a private voluntary organization (PVO) or cooperative that is, to the extent practicable, registered with the USAID

Administrator, or an organization designated by USAID as a PIO, such as WFP. This includes

U.S. and non-U.S. NGOs as defined in the FFP Act and as described on the USAID website under PVO registration.

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.

2. New Partners

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

3. Cost Share

Cost share is not required for the Leader Award.

4. Minimal Qualification Requirements

USAID has no additional minimal qualification requirements.

5. Limit on Number of Applications

An applicant, defined as a submitting organization, may only submit one application under this

RFA. However, an applicant may be a sub-awardee on applications submitted by other organizations.

Section D – Application and Submission Information

1. Point of Contact

The point of contact (POC) concerning this RFA is Ms. Joan Whelan, acting Collaborating, Learning and Adapting Team Lead at jwhelan@usaid.gov. Any questions concerning this RFA or its appendices must be submitted in writing within 8 days of its posting to the POC with a copy to FACG@usaid.gov and “IDEAL RFA” in the subject line.

2. Application Format

The application must be specific, complete, and concise. Applications that do not meet the requirements of this RFA will not be considered. The application shall be 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)

● Executive Summary (2 pages maximum)

● Technical Approach (25 pages maximum)

● Management and Institutional Capacity (8 pages)

● Staffing and Key Personnel (5 pages maximum)

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

● Annexes (see paragraph f)

The above bullets correspond to the sections of the RFA described below and constitute the general application format. If submissions exceed the page number maximum, only the pages up to the limit will be reviewed, and pages exceeding the maximum will not be considered.

a) Cover Page (1 page)

The cover page must have the following:

● 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 should include mailing address, e-mail, and telephone number;

● Valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number; and

● Registration date in System for Award Management (SAM) – note that successful applicants must maintain SAM registration.

mailto:jwhelan@usaid.gov

b) Executive Summary (2 pages maximum)

The executive summary should provide a high-level overview of how the Applicant proposes to carry out the requirements set out in the RFA, to achieve the intended purpose of IDEAL to improve the design, implementation and overall effectiveness of development and emergency food security activities funded by FFP.

c) Technical Approach (25 pages maximum)

The technical approach should express a clear understanding of the FFP Background, and Scope and Purpose of IDEAL outlined in Section A of this RFA. In addition, it should include:

1- A clear overview of the operating and policy context for the IDEAL activity, in terms of

The global food security policy environment, including the 2016-2025 FFP Strategy and relevant USAID policies and strategies

Current global trends and the major barriers and enablers in working towards improved and sustained food security and nutrition for the most vulnerable

The role of FFP and its implementing partners in carrying out both emergency and development food security activities in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations

Key capacity and knowledge gaps in the FFP…