Pre-Solicitation Notice (BEACON).pdf

Pre-Solicitation Number: 72049220-OEDG-BEACON Issuance Date: May 29, 2020 Response Due Date and Time: No later than 3:00PM (Manila Time) June 15, 2020 Response Email Address: manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov; copy furnish fcalixto@usaid.gov

Subject: Request for Concept Paper for USAID/Philippines’ Better Access and Connectivity

(BEACON) Project.

This Pre-Solicitation Notice is issued in accordance with FAR 15.202(a) to provide a general description of the scope or purpose of the acquisition and invites potential offerors to submit information that allows the Government to advise the offerors about their potential to be viable competitors. Potential Offerors who are interested are requested to submit a 15-page Concept Paper in response to the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO) for a new USAID Philippines Project, namely Better Access and Connectivity (BEACON). This activity’s primary goal is to promote better access and connectivity in the Philippines by (a) improving the quality of its Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and logistics infrastructure; (b) improving the enabling environment and regulatory governance for ICT and logistics investment; and (c) strengthening cybersecurity protections. The major results that the Project will achieve are found in the SOO (see Attachment A). Subject to availability of funds, USAID anticipates that this activity or activities will be implemented within a cost range of $30-$35 million over a period of five (5) years.

Instructions for the preparation and information on the evaluation of Concept Papers are provided in Attachment B. Concept Papers received in response to this pre-solicitation notice shall not be portrayed as proposals and will not be accepted by the U.S. Government (USG) to form a binding agreement. Responses are voluntary and responders are solely accountable for all expenses associated with submitting its Concept Papers.

Sincerely, (Sgd) Sandra Jansen Contracting Officer Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance mailto:manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov mailto:fcalixto@usaid.gov

Attachment A page 1

ATTACHMENT A

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

A.1 INTRODUCTION

This Statement of Objectives (SOO) is for the Contractor to provide technical services to implement the Better Access and Connectivity (BEACON) activity. This activity will engage a contractor that can effectively and efficiently provide technical advisory services and commodities support that will improve access and connectivity by lowering logistics and communication costs in the Philippines.

Improvements in access and connectivity is undoubtedly critical for the country’s long-term economic growth and competitiveness as it directly impacts economic activities by increasing productivity, facilitating trade, and promoting innovation. Building the country’s ICT and logistics infrastructure is fundamental to improving competitiveness needed to achieve higher levels of trade and investment and hence employment and income generation. This project seeks to address gaps in access and connectivity, particularly where it reduces the cost of doing business, improves productivity of private enterprise and increases the benefits of the digital economy. The demand for better and stable access and connectivity has further increased in response to the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in logistics and communications infrastructure will also enable the efficient delivery of public services, connect the underserved and remote regions, expand economic opportunity and even ensure public health. The project also seeks to improve citizen participation and customer satisfaction through digital services and minimize cyber threats.

This SOO invites potential offerors to develop cost effective solutions and innovative approaches to meet the stated objectives. It also presents USAID/Philippines with an opportunity to assess potential offerors’ understanding of all aspects of the effort to be performed by eliminating detailed instructions on how to accomplish the stated objectives.

Offerors are invited to provide responses that include information, evidence-based and data-informed analyses, strategies, and recommendations that demonstrate approaches for the implementation of a technical assistance activity that will help address the problem of weak competitiveness and non-inclusivity of economic growth in the Philippines.

For purposes of this RFP, the words “activity”, “program”, or “project” are used interchangeably to refer to BEACON.

A.2 PURPOSE

This activity is an integral part of the USAID/Philippines project “Economic Growth, Democracy and Governance with Equity” which seeks to assist the Philippines to strengthen its path to self-reliance, improve democratic practices, and become a stable, middle-income country by 2040. Specifically, it supports the EGDGE Program’s goal of “economic development is

Attachment A page 2 made more inclusive” and the sub-objectives of “environment for trade and investment is made more open and competitive” and “domestic resources mobilized and public financial management improved”.

More broadly, BEACON contributes to the USAID/Philippines’ Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2020-2024’s goal of a “well-governed and more self-reliant Indo-Pacific partner”. Specifically, this project supports Development Objective (DO) 2, Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded, and Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1, Regulatory Quality Improved; and IR 2.4 Private Sector-led Growth Promoted.

A.3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Given the archipelagic character of the Philippines, the country relies heavily on logistics and communication networks to connect its various islands and regions. Mobility within the country depends on safe, reliable and efficient maritime, air and land transport linkages. Shipping services, for instance, account for 80% of passenger and goods movement within the country.

ICT infrastructure, with its potential for bridging wide distances, also contributes to the speed and efficiency of the movement of goods and services and lessens the effect of information asymmetries. The quality of interconnecting networks that allow the movement of people, goods and commerce impact directly on the country’s overall competitiveness and its ability to achieve inclusive growth. Better access and connection to markets expand economic opportunity and improves the quality of life across all levels.

Overall, the Philippines lags behind its peers in the Southeast Asian region in access and connectivity. In the World Bank’s 2018 Logistics Performance Index, the Philippines ranked 60th behind Vietnam (39), Thailand (31) and Indonesia (43). In terms of overall quality of infrastructure, the Philippines placed 113 out of 137 countries, according to the WEF 2017-2018 Global Competitiveness Index, behind Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The country also trailed in measures of ICT development and readiness. According to the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) ICT Development Index of 2017, the Philippines ranked 101st behind Thailand (78) and Malaysia (63). The Philippines was only slightly ahead of Vietnam but behind Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia in the World Economic Forum’s 2016 Networked Readiness Index (see table below).

Overall Quality of Infrastructure

Logistics Performance

Index

ICT

Development

Index

Network Readiness

Index

Indonesia 68 46 111 73

Malaysia 21 41 63 31

Philippines 113 60 101 77

Attachment A page 3

Thailand 67 32 78 62

Vietnam 89 39 108 79 Sources: 2017-2018 WEF Global Competitive Index, WB 2018 Logistics Performance Index, ITU 2017 ICT Development Index, WEF 2016 Networked Readiness Index

Inadequate supply of infrastructure was cited as the second most problematic factor for doing business in the Philippines, according to the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey of 2017. The most recent constraints analysis on the Philippines undertaken by the Millennium Challenge Corporation and USAID’s 2017 Job’s diagnostics both found infrastructure to be a binding constraint to economic growth in the country.

Poor logistics and weak digital connectivity hamper the country’s economic growth and weakens its overall competitiveness. This translates to billions of dollars in lost productivity, reduced competitiveness, less foreign direct investment, and slower growth. On the other hand, better access and connectivity generates jobs, improves the country’s attractiveness for private investment and creates income opportunities. Higher spending in logistics and ICT infrastructure will have backward and forward linkages further stimulating the local economy and boosting productivity growth. The cost of moving goods and services to market as well as accessing production inputs crucially depend on the quality of logistics and communications infrastructure. Lower costs and increased efficiency, in turn, will advance economic growth and hence further improve employment opportunities. There is general agreement that better access and connectivity improves long-term production, raises incomes, and reduces poverty levels. 1

More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the need to fast-track digital infrastructure and connectivity. With communities and industries in extended lockdown, there is increased reliance on on-line services with internet access now considered to be indispensable.

Businesses are adjusting to remote working conditions while schools are shifting to on-line learning platforms for instruction. More fundamentally, national and local governments are relying on digital infrastructures to deal with the impact of viral pandemics and future public health crises. Governments, for instance, are now prioritizing the better integration of artificial intelligence and big data analytics relating to citizens' movement, disease transmission patterns and health monitoring that could be used to aid prevention measures.

Theory of Change

USAID prioritizes the Philippines’ journey to self-reliance by promoting inclusive, market-driven growth by improving regulatory quality and opening the economy to a more competitive engagement of the private sector and other international actors that carry out sustainable, transparent investments. This activity’s development hypothesis is as follows: If the enabling environment, ICT and logistics infrastructure and cybersecurity protections are

1 For a good survey of the literature, see Y. Sawada. 2015. “The Impacts of Infrastructure in Development: A Selective Survey”. Asian Development Bank Institute Working Paper Series No. 511. Also see N.W. Ismail and J.M. Mahyideen. 2015. “The Impact of Infrastructure on Trade and Economic Growth in Selected Economies in Asia” ADBI Working Paper Series No. 553.

Attachment A page 4 strengthened, then the country’s access and connectivity will improve. Better access and connectivity will then enable a more competitive, productive and self-reliant economy.

A.4 OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of this activity is to promote better access and connectivity in the Philippines by (a) improving the quality of its ICT and logistics infrastructure, (b) improving the enabling environment and regulatory governance; and (c) strengthening cybersecurity protections.

Results framework

Objective 1: Quality of ICT and logistics infrastructure improved

The country’s ability to take advantage of the growth of the digital economy is hampered by poor access, the lack of quality infrastructure and the high cost of internet connectivity. In the WEF Networked Readiness Index, the Philippines ranked high in terms of business usage, capacity for innovation and overall skills but scored poorly in regulatory environment, infrastructure, and affordability. About 45% of the country’s population is not connected to the Internet. Broadband penetration is low compared to countries of similar economic size. According to the International Telecommunication Union, the Philippines ranked 104th and 97th in terms of mobile and fixed broadband respectively, significantly behind Malaysia (82, 32), Thailand (93, 36), and Vietnam (66, 73). In the WEF Global Competitiveness Index, the country fell behind its ASEAN peers in mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions, fixed broadband internet subscriptions, and mobile broadband subscriptions despite having more internet users. In the WEF’s 2016 Global Enabling Trade Index, the Philippines was ahead of Indonesia but significantly behind Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam in the availability and use of ICTs.

Average internet speed is the lowest in the Asia Pacific region at just 5.5 Mbps. The Philippines posted the slowest connection speed and the slowest 4G LTE (long-term evolution standard)

Attachment A page 5 speed among the ASEAN6 according to both the Akamai 2017 Internet-Connectivity Report 2 and OpenSignal’s State of LTE Report. The country had the poorest overall mobile video 3 experience among 69 countries in OpenSignal’s 2018 State of Mobile Video report.

Concentration of computer ownership and usage is high in urban areas and among middle-to-upper income classes but poor in rural areas and among lower income groups. Areas far from urban centers lack strong ICT infrastructure and suffer from slow and unreliable internet connections. Only about 26% of public schools across the country have Internet connections.

The Philippines also has one of the lowest cell site densities in the region, with only 20,000 towers compared to Vietnam’s 70,000 and Indonesia’s 90,000 towers. Vietnam has 170% more fiber connections than the Philippines. 4

Prices of ICT services in the Philippines are among the highest in ASEAN. According to the WEF Networked Readiness Index, the country scored 107 out of 139 countries in terms of affordability. Fixed telephone services are priced at USD36.2 per month, the highest in ASEAN.

Moreover, the price of mobile cellular services placed as the second highest (USD22.2 per month) while the price of fixed broadband services ranked as the third highest (USD51.6 per month) in ASEAN. The Philippines ranks 126th out of 182 countries measured by the ITU with entry-level fixed broadband prices at 7.53 percent level of GNI per capita behind Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Despite services being poor, local consumers face high prices. Fixed broadband speed is way below the global average and yet is more expensive above the ITU’s recommended affordability threshold.

As e-commerce expands and the more businesses use digital platforms for connecting buyers to sellers, logistics infrastructure will also be important in building a digital economy particularly where distance and remoteness presents a challenge. However, the Philippines currently has the highest logistics cost in the ASEAN region. The country ranked 60th well behind its ASEAN peers in the World Bank’s 2018 Logistics Performance Index (LPI). Complying with Customs and other border procedures is a major challenge. Lead times for export and import efficiency in the Philippines significantly slower compared to the regional average of 2-3 days. The Philippines fell behind Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam in customs as well as logistics competence and timeliness in the latest LPI report. The Philippines also ranked last relative to its regional neighbors in the quality of postal services. 5

Results and indicators

At the outcome/results level, this activity seeks to place the Philippines’ ranking (or score) at least at par with its regional peers (comparable to Thailand and/or Vietnam) in the following

2 Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

3 Akamai (2017), a cloud data network that monitors internet traffic, reports that the Philippines’ average internet speed stands at the lowest in the Asia Pacific with only 5.5 Mbps in 2017 4 See Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos, Jonathan Brewer and Jaime Faustino (2018). “From Analog to Digital:

Philippine Policy and Emerging Internet Technologies”. The Asia Foundation.

5 According to the Universal Postal Union’s 2019 Index of Postal Development, the Philippines ranked 72 out 170 countries, behind Indonesia (59), Malaysia (33), Thailand (29) and Vietnam (45).

Attachment A page 6 selected performance indexes. This activity will improve the country’s performance on internet bandwidth per internet user, percentage of households with internet access, and broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (both fixed and mobile) as measured in the ITU’s ICT Development Index. This activity will also seek improvements in infrastructure, affordability, and government usage as measured in the WEF Network Readiness Index. This activity also seeks improvements in the quality of trade and transport infrastructure measures of the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index.

At the output level, the Offeror should propose measurable performance targets in the following indicators:

● Number of ICT and logistics infrastructure projects successfully tendered due to USG assistance

● Value (in US dollars) of ICT and logistics infrastructure projects successfully tendered due to USG assistance

● Number of beneficiaries receiving improved ICT and logistics services due to USG assistance

● Number of women participants with increased access to productive economic resources

Objective 2: Enabling environment and regulatory governance improved

Limited competition and barriers to entry have contributed to high prices and low-quality ICT infrastructure. There have only been two main telecommunications providers since the enactment of Republic Act 7925 (1995) or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act which opened the sector. Foreign ownership of telecommunication services, which is mainly used for Internet 6 service provision, is capped at 40 percent. Telecommunications is considered a public utility under current law and requires providers to secure a franchise or certificate of public convenience (CPC) to be able to operate domestically. This process is often tedious, laborious and slow thereby discouraging much needed investment in this sector. The rules governing telecommunications, mass media, advertising, finance, intellectual property and the ICT and ICT enabled-services (ICT-ES) sector do not converge and are subject to conflicting interpretations.

For instance, the government imposes no ownership limitations for internet and computer services but limits foreign participation in the content and services carried on these platforms.

Current rules not only discourage the entry of foreign capital but also the latest technologies and skilled human resources necessary to advance this sector.

The newly established Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) has a mandate to “plan, develop, and promote the national ICT agenda.” However, DICT’s authority over various components of the ICT sector is unclear. A study from the Philippine Institute for Development Studies notes that “while the DICT Act’s policy objectives include fostering a 7 policy environment for the ICT and ICT-ES sectors …, it is not clear if the DICT has broad powers to accomplish these policy objectives… the lack of specificity in the extent of powers of DICT creates uncertainty in the implementation and application of” the law. Moreover, 6 The Duterte administration has taken moves to invite a third telco into the market.

7 L.L. Barcenas. (2019) “ICT Regulation and Regulatory Authority” PIDS Policy Notes No. 2019-02.

Attachment A page 7 overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions continue to hamper ICT development. The Departments of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Science and Technology (DOST) work in the areas of e-commerce, innovation, skills development, connectivity and network security. The Central Bank regulates on-line payments while the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) is leading the work on setting up the National ID system. The Department of Finance (DOF) is working on TradeNet, the on-line platform of customs and border clearances called the national single window. The Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) rules over mergers, acquisitions and competition affecting entry into the telecoms and ICT sectors while the National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) regulates use of frequencies. On the logistics side, DTI, DOF (through the customs bureau) and the Department of Transport all have jurisdictions in the sector. The poor delineation of functions often leads to confusion and increases the cost of doing business.

The Philippines will need to undertake significant institutional and policy reforms to prepare itself for the growth of the digital economy. The policy environment, primarily made up of laws 8 based on analog and voice-based services from the 1930s to 1990s, needs to be updated to adapt to new emerging technologies. Reforms such as removing landline requirements of the Public 9

Telecom Act, relaxing foreign ownership limits on the Public Service Act and applying amendments on the Open Access Transmission Act have been proposed by reform advocates.

This includes reclassifying data-only services, reforming spectrum management, and setting up directives to standardize data infrastructure rules particularly for cloud-computing.

Results and indicators

At the outcome/results level, this activity seeks to place the Philippines’ ranking (or score) at least at par with its regional peers (comparable to Thailand and/or Vietnam) in the following selected performance indexes. This activity seeks improvements in measures on regulatory environment and business and innovation environment as measured in the WEF Network Readiness Index.

At a output level, the Offeror should propose measurable performance targets in the following

● Number of laws, policies, regulations or standards promoting open, interoperable, reliable and secure digital infrastructure formally adopted or implemented as supported by USG assistance

● Number of laws, policies, regulations or standards promoting inter-modal, cost-effective and affordable logistics infrastructure formally adopted or implemented as supported by USG assistance

● Proportion of females who report increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of USG supported training/programming

8 See F.M. Quimba and S. Calizo, Jr. (2018) “Going Digital: From Innovation to Inclusive Growth in the Philippines” Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2018-19. Also refer to World Bank (2019)”The Digital Economy in Southeast Asia: Strengthening the Foundations for Future Growth”.

9 Mirandilla-Santos, et al. Op cit.

Attachment A page 8

Objective 3: Cybersecurity protections strengthened

The Philippines is vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. Awareness of cybersecurity issues is low across the country despite the high incidence of on-line scams, data phishing, hacking or theft. A Frost & Sullivan study commissioned by Microsoft found that local organizations frequently encountered data exfiltration and data corruption. The study estimated that cybersecurity incidents cost the Philippines about $3.5 billion or 1.1 percent of its GDP.

The Philippines moved up to fifth place from ninth a year earlier in Kaspersky Lab’s global list of countries with most online threats detected. The 2016 Symantec Internet Threat Report still 10 ranked the Philippines 6th in the world when it comes to web attack origins. The report also said the Philippines placed 20th globally and 3rd in the Asia Pacific region for social media scams. It added that in 2015, the country was hit by an average of 17 ransomware attacks a day – a type of virus that prevents a user from accessing his system. The Microsoft study revealed that more than half of organizations in the country experienced some form of cybersecurity breach.

Network security firm FireEye reported in 2016 that organizations based in the country are “twice as likely to face an advanced cyberattack compared to the worldwide average.”

According to the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG), the Philippines experienced a total of 1,809 cybercrimes in 2015, around 800 more than the previous year. The Philippines has seen data breaches like that of the Commission on Elections data leak of 2016 and the 2016 $81-million Bangladesh Bank cyber-heist that exploited loopholes in the money-laundering framework. In 2016, the government reported at least 68 government websites were subjected to attacks including hacking, defacement, and denial of service.

The Philippines currently ranked 37th in the 2017 Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) of the United Nations-International Telecommunications Union behind Thailand and Malaysia . 11

Similarly, the country ranked 24th out of 60 least cyber-secure countries in the Comparitech’s rankings. The Philippines has relatively new legal frameworks in place to secure electronic 12 transactions, data protection and privacy, and for consumer protection. The government just passed R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act and has recently adopted the National Cybersecurity Plan. Unfortunately, there are very few certified cybersecurity professionals in the Philippines available to address the need. One report noted that the Philippines only had 84 certified information systems security professionals (CISSPs) compared to experts in Indonesia (107), Thailand (189), Malaysia (275) and Singapore (1000).

10 Its Global Q2 2019 Security Bulletin, which compiles data from the Kaspersky Security Network (KSN), found that almost 7 million or 37.4% of Kaspersky users in the Philippines were attacked by online threats.

11 The GCI measures a country’s cybersecurity maturity through the following criteria: legal, technical, organizational, capacity-building and international cooperation.

12 The Comparitech study evaluated 60 countries across various categories from malware rates, attacks to cybersecurity-related legislation

Attachment A page 9

Results and indicators

At the outcome/results level, this activity seeks to place the Philippines’ ranking (or score) at least at par with its regional peers (comparable to Thailand) in the ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Index. This activity seeks improvements on legal, technical, organizational, and capacity-building components of the ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Index.

At a output level, the Offeror should propose measurable performance targets in the following

● Number of laws, policies, regulations or standards promoting open, interoperable, reliable and secure digital infrastructure formally adopted or implemented as supported by USG assistance

● Number of CISSPs trained and certified supported by USG assistance

● Number of firms and agencies adopting U.S. National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) standards as supported by USG assistance

A.4 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

A.4a Strategic Approach

This activity supports the U.S. government’s Indo-Pacific vision which aims to promote “a free and open Indo-Pacific in which independent nations with diverse cultures and different aspirations can prosper side-by-side in freedom and in peace.” BEACON also supports the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 (ARIA) that seeks “to pursue high-quality and transparent infrastructure projects” and “maintain unimpeded commerce…and communication” with countries in the Indo-Pacific region. Both IP vision and ARIA seek to provide an alternative to state-dominated infrastructure investments that are predatory, financially unsustainable, or otherwise harmful and promote free market competition, transparency, local capacity building, sustainable financing arrangements, environmental and social safeguards, and open and fair market access.

BEACON aligns with the economic pillar of Indo-Pacific vision, including the Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) initiative, the Infrastructure Transaction and Assistance Network (ITAN), and Trade and Competitiveness. The DCCP is focused on communications infrastructure, cybersecurity, and advancing the digital economy. It supports communications infrastructure development through private enterprise-led partnerships; promotes transparent regulatory policies for open, competitive markets; and builds partners’ cybersecurity capacity to address shared security threats. DCCP seeks to promote open, interoperable, reliable and secure communications infrastructure and internet connectivity. This initiative will support programs and activities that assist partner countries expand their broadband and digital connectivity in a commercially sustainable way; promote trade and investment in information and communications technologies (ICTs) and ensure that these expanded ICT connections are secure and trusted. This activity also implements USAID’s Digital Strategy which seeks to improve USAID development assistance outcomes

Attachment A page 10 through responsible use of digital technology and seeks to strengthen openness, inclusiveness, and security of the country’s digital ecosystems.

The Infrastructure Transaction and Assistance Network (ITAN) is also a priority IPS program. ITAN aims to accelerate U.S. private sector exports and investment and bolster Indo-Pacific countries’ ability to implement sustainable, transparent, and high-quality infrastructure projects. ITAN will support capacity-building programs to improve partner countries' project evaluation processes, regulatory and procurement environments, and project preparation and financing capabilities. One option for transaction assistance is through the Transaction Advisory Fund (TAF) that provides transaction-specific advisory services, such as legal services for contract negotiation and bid/proposal evaluation, on key projects already under consideration or development. This activity will support the development of a pipeline of projects eligible for TAF support.

This activity also lines up with the overall IPS goal on trade and competitiveness of broad-based, sustained, free and fair trade and competitiveness increased. In particular, this activity will seek to improve trade facilitation and customs processes and improve the ease of doing business by seeking improvements in the country’s logistics supply chain, lowering the costs of digital connectivity, and reducing transaction costs through technology platforms for traders and investors.

This activity is also consistent with the objectives of the 2018 Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act that establishes the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and will facilitate private sector investment in infrastructure development through loan or loan guarantees, equity investment, insurance and other assistance. Finally, this activity supports private sector-led efforts in line with USAID’s Private Sector Engagement (PSE) policy. The PSE Policy pursues market-based approaches and investment to increase the sustainability of outcomes and accelerate countries’ progress on the Journey to Self-Reliance.

This activity supports the Build, Build, Build (BBB) program of President Duterte. Under the strategy to accelerate public spending on infrastructure, which the government said is targeted to reach between US$157 billion and US$177 billion from 2017 to 2022. This project is also aligned with the priority transport and ICT development projects as identified in the 2018-2022 Philippine Development Plan.

This activity will leverage resources and expertise from other development partners, particularly the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the European Union and other donors extending assistance in infrastructure development in the Philippines. Several large-scale priority infrastructure projects in the Philippines have been financed through loans from ADB, World Bank, and JICA.

Attachment A page 11

This activity will also closely coordinate with other USAID-supported projects including those under ITAN’s Asia Enhancing Development and Growth through Energy (Asia EDGE) initiative. This project will work closely with the Regulatory Reform Support for National Development (RESPOND) activity that ease barriers to entry, reduce regulatory burdens and transaction costs for business, strengthen regulatory oversight, and promote transparency and accountability. It will likewise coordinate efforts with the Delivering Effective Government for Competitiveness and Inclusive Growth (DELIVER) activity, which has an infrastructure-focused component.

DELIVER seeks to (1) increase the absorptive capacity and technical capability of line agencies to plan, design and implement projects; (2) effectively utilize public-private partnerships (PPP) as a mode of financing and implementing priority infrastructure projects;

and (3) improve inter-agency coordination in the planning, management, implementation and monitoring of infrastructure projects.

A.4b Gender

The Offeror must demonstrate that gender and social inclusion issues are suitably integrated into various components of the project and will undertake specific efforts to ensure that interventions do not discriminate against or disproportionately benefit either gender. USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) states: “Gender issues are central to the achievement of strategic plans and Assistance Objectives (AO), and USAID strives to promote gender equality, in which both men and women have equal opportunity to benefit from and contribute to economic, social, cultural and political development; enjoy socially valued resources and rewards; and realize their human rights” (ADS 201.3.9.3). To the extent possible, the implementing partner is required to encourage the equal participation of men and women in all aspects of this contract. People with disabilities are isolated from the communities due to physical infrastructure barriers, ICT technology can be an enabler and help them connect to the community and engage them in the global economy. Therefore BEACON activities should comply with Section 508 of Rehabilitation act https://www.fcc.gov/general/section-508-rehabilitation-act to promote equal access. Specific steps should be made to provide ICT technology to people with disabilities and to engage them in the global market.

The Offeror is also required to identify and outline any potential gender and social inclusion issues that might be encountered during the implementation and how these issues will be addressed. Specific interventions should be identified that will benefit women-owned and those owned by persons with disabilities enterprises and businesses and that women and disabled persons are not unduly harmed by the digital economy. Where opportunities arise, the implementer(s) will work with the Philippine government and other stakeholders that have a role to play in advancing implementation of gender-related laws and action plans.

The Offeror is also expected to contribute to the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative that seeks to economically empower 50 million women across the developing world by 2025, and, in so doing, boost economic growth and increase peace

Attachment A page 12 and stability around the world. This activity will focus on the Initiative’s three pillars. Pillar 1; Women Prospering in the Workforce, which addresses workforce development, vocational education, and skills training for women; Pillar 2; Women Succeeding as Entrepreneurs, increases women's access to capital, markets, networks, and mentorship; and Pillar 3;

Women Enabled in the Economy, identifies and works to remove legal, regulatory, and social barriers to women's economic success and enhances protections for women in policies, laws, regulations, and practices.

A.4c Sustainability

Sustainability and scalability are central to the objectives and design of the activity and is reflected in the considerations for city selection. The Offeror must identify the elements of sustainability and scalability considered essential to achieve the activity purpose and describe how sustainability objectives will be integrated and how benefits and results will continue and be scaled up beyond USAID funding. The Offeror must identify key sustainability issues and considerations around a host of issues, as necessary, including economic, financial, social soundness, institutional capacity, political economy, technical/sectoral, and environmental (including climate change vulnerability). The Offeror’s Performance Work Statement must propose interventions on these issues that will be considered to more sustainable outcomes for the activity as a whole and for specific city engagements.

The Offeror will review the financial costs of the activity, its recurrent costs, and its maintenance capability and costs, as well as ensure that future revenues will be adequate. The Offeror will also look into the institutional capacities that will need to be in place or developed, including systems, policies and skills. The Offeror must identify and demonstrate an understanding of the key stakeholders in the activity in order to help ensure project “buy-in” and the long-term sustainability of the effort. Stakeholders will include the concerned GPH agencies, local governments, civil society and private sector organizations, other donors and universities.

A.4d Environmental Guidelines and Climate Risk Management

Development should be environmentally sound, and interventions must be compliant with environmental regulations. As such, the BEACON Activity should adhere to the provisions in Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 216. In addition, it should also adhere to Philippine environmental laws and procedures. The Offeror will perform the work in accordance with the approved programmatic Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and its subsequent amendment(s), USAID’s environmental regulations at 22 CFR 216, and in accordance with application local environmental laws and regulations. BEACON’s activities will largely entail technical assistance and capacity building initiatives and is not expected to be directly carrying out construction activities. As such, the initial environmental assessment may recommend a Categorical Exclusion threshold decision. Activities under the Categorical Exclusion do not require an Environmental Assessment because the actions do not influence the natural or physical environment. However, some activities may be recommended for Negative Determination with Conditions to capture the nature of some

Attachment A page 13 tasks that may have a potential harmful environmental impact. All activities recommended for a Negative Determination with Conditions are subjected to further environmental review for approval by the project’s COR and the MEO using the Environmental Screening Report (ESR) prior to implementation.

Climate risk management (CRM) is now required for new USAID strategies, projects and activities. The ADS 201mal puts in place the new CRM guidance for new USAID Activities.

As reported in USAID’s Climate Change Risk Profile for the Philippines in 2017, the country is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, sea level rise, increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising temperatures and extreme rainfall. The country lies in the world’s most cyclone-prone region, averaging 19-20 cyclones each year, of which 7 to 9 make landfall. These guarantee the high possibility of extreme weather events to happen.

The Philippines’ vulnerability to typhoons is worsened by sea-level rise that affects its vast coastline and by its dependence on climate-sensitive natural resources. Therefore, the Offeror shall identify expected climate change impacts over the life of the Activity’s expected benefits and demonstrate how those risks will be reduced in order to ensure effectiveness and sustainability of the Activity’s objectives in the face of climate variability and change. How to address and adaptively manage climate risks that apply to the Activity will either be included in the EMMP or a separate CRM plan as deemed fit. Monitoring of both EMMP and CRM plan are expected during the implementation of the Activity.. The Offeror will develop climate risk management measures to ensure that the BEACON Activity is more climate resilient and avoids maladaptation.

A.4e Private Sector Engagement

This activity implements USAID’s Private Sector Engagement policy that seeks to consult, strategize, align, collaborate, and implement with the private sector for greater scale, sustainability, and effectiveness of development outcomes. The Offeror will undertake efforts to engage companies and investors to explore opportunities for collaboration and work with the private sector to create new solutions and approaches that achieve project outcomes. The Offeror should articulate a strategy that actively engages the private sector and develops partnerships with business firms and associations to leverage resources, bring solutions to scale, ensure sustainability, promote innovation, and achieve efficient outcomes.

This activity will focus on seeking more sustainable and enterprise-driven outcomes from the outset. It will seek opportunities where the private sector may be interested in collaborating to address the development problem stated here. The project will actively identify ways in which it can work with the private sector to understand and address barriers to better access and connectivity. This activity will seek to steer and catalyze private resources (human, technical and financial) toward investments and responses that contribute to project objectives and outcomes.

Attachment A page 14

A.4f Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

Collaborative Learning and Adaptive Management will be key to the success of BEACON, given its broad and cross-cutting approach. Adaptive management refers to adjusting in intervention tactics or design based on iterative learning, thereby customizing the intervention. As such, establishing implementation decision points/milestones will be necessary during the life of the activity. While BEACON may need to test an array of approaches, to ensure results, it will need to learn from its experiments and quickly hone in on those that are getting results, drop those that are not, and adapt approaches where indicated. Such an approach will also require a flexible monitoring system, across intervention components, private sector and public sector actors, and development partners.

The Offeror is also expected to develop a monitoring, evaluation and learning plan. As stated in ADS 201, the project MEL Plan serves to measure progress towards planned results and to identify the cause of any delays or impediments during implementation. The MEL Plan for the project provides a framework for monitoring, evaluation and learning that pulls together performance information from all activities contributing to a project. Evaluations will provide opportunities to learn by doing and generate knowledge for the agency. Lessons from the monitoring, evaluations and budget analysis will be integrated into the project cycle to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the interventions.

USAID expects the Offeror to propose a data collection and analysis plan. This activity will rely on data and evidence to inform its decisions and direct its interventions. The project will aim for data-driven decision-making and use a multidisciplinary approach to improve regulatory quality and governance. The plan should identify data requirements, metrics and illustrative data templates that will be used in the activity. The Offeror is expected to set up a data analytics system to support project activities, identify milestones and achieve outcomes.

This system should define data-gathering techniques, analytical methodologies, predictive modeling and technology applications that will be utilized in this activity. Data quality, consistency, accuracy and completeness should be ensured. Data disaggregation by gender should be followed. Once data is analyzed, the system should also allow the visualization of results using infographics.

A.4g Grants Under Contract

The BEACON contractor is expected to administer and execute multiple grants with a combined value of $3,000,000 over the life of the project. The purpose of the grants under contract (GUC) component is to extend resources to non-government organizations and entities, including academic institutions, private sector organizations, civil society organizations, and other private enterprises whose participation is deemed crucial in achieving project goal and objectives. GUC activities will complement other components of the BEACON and allow USAID to leverage available resources from potential partners to maximize the outcomes of the project.

Attachment A page 15

The GUC may be used across all components of this activity and could include a wide array of technical assistance activities, including but not limited to research, capacity building, coalition building, policy advocacy, public outreach, and policy development to support the activity objectives. GUC activities are also a potential source of technological innovations that could help improve project outcomes. Additionally, grant recipients could help build networks and linkages among diverse actors and stakeholders of BEACON.

Attachment B page 1

ATTACHMENT B

INSTRUCTIONS IN PREPARING FOR AND EVALUATION OF CONCEPT PAPERS

B.1 General Instructions

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to review the instructions for the submission of Concept Papers as well as all pertinent information provided in this Pre-Solicitation notice in order to be able to present its best Concept Paper to be considered for viability to the subsequent solicitation emanating from this notice.

B.1a Eligibility

Prospective Offerors are U.S. and Non-U.S. Nongovernmental Organizations (other than those from foreign policy restricted countries), including but not limited to foundations, academic organizations, for-profit private enterprises, and consortia. Individuals and Public International Organizations (PIOs) are not eligible to participate in this pre-solicitation notice.

USAID welcomes organizations that have not previously been a contractor/recipient of

USAID.

B.1b Submission of Concept Papers

Concept Papers must be submitted to the following via email:

The Contracting Officer Email: manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov (copy furnish fcalixto@usaid.gov)

Concept papers must be received no later than the due date and time stipulated in the cover page of this pre-solicitation notice.

B.2 Format and Content of Concept Papers

Offerors must organize its Concept Paper to follow the Evaluation Factors as listed in Section B.3. Concept Papers must be prepared using Letter-size paper, one-inch margins (on all sides), 12-point Times New Roman font (except for tables, figures, or charts which may use smaller size font) with all pages marked with page numbers. Concept Papers must be in PDF format (2017 version or earlier). Concept Papers must not exceed 15 pages (excluding cover page and Annexes) and should be in the following order:

● Cover page (not counted in the 15-page limit) must include the following information:

○ Pre-Solicitation Number

○ Name of Offeror mailto:manila-roaa-rfp@usaid.gov mailto:fcalixto@usaid.gov

Attachment B page 2

○ Address of Offeror

○ Point of Contact (POC) of Offeror, including name position and email address

○ DUNS number (if available)

● Understanding of the development problem and theory of change

● Proposed strategic technical approach

● Capability statement, relevant experiences, and past performance

● Annexes (not counted in the 15-page limit), may include:

○ Results and/or logical framework

○ Past performance information (see Attachment C for format)

B.2a Understanding of the development problem and theory of change

The Offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues and challenges in addressing access and connectivity in the Philippines. The Offeror should identify the most binding constraints supported by a thorough analysis of the challenges to advancing the digital economy in the country. The Offeror may develop and present its own theory of change explaining how the applicant interprets the development problem and what desired outcomes can be achieved. This discussion should demonstrate a full appreciation of the political-economy, policy and institutional challenges in this sector and assess potential outcomes from action and inaction by the government.

B.2b Proposed strategic technical approach

The Offeror must describe its overall strategy and technical approach in accordance with the Statement of Objectives (SOO). The overall strategy shall be logically sound and based on a clear understanding of the opportunities and challenges to be tackled. This section should demonstrate structured thinking behind the proposed interventions, and their link to intended outcomes and results. The Offeror should present a Results and/or Logical Framework (may be presented as an Annex to the Concept Paper) outlining key assumptions and risks to achievement of project outcomes and intermediate results and mitigating factors /strategies should be explicitly stated. Offerors are encouraged to propose creative and innovative approaches designed to reach the desired outcomes/results of the program. The technical approach must also build upon the good practices and lessons learned/developed by the applicant or USAID under similar programs. This section can also highlight how the Offeror’s proposed approach will build on interventions by other development partners and the private sector.

B.2c Capability statement, relevant experiences, and past performance

Offeror must describe its capabilities, relevant experience and recent past performance in implementing an activity similar in scope and scale to the BEACON activity.