RFI 72011421RFI00001 USAID Georgia National Governance Program.docx

SUBJECT: Request for Information: USAID/Georgia National Governance Program ISSUANCE DATE: September 29, 2021 CLOSING DATE: October 28, 2021

CLOSING TIME: 10 a.m. Tbilisi Time

DOCUMENT NUMBER: 72011421RFI00002 – USAID/Georgia National Governance Program TO: General Public The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to conduct market research, determine the interest of capable organizations to provide USAID/Georgia with technical and advisory services and request comments and recommendations from stakeholders to identify ways we can work together to address Georgia’s governance challenges related to the performance of governance institutions at the national level over the next 5 years.

This is an RFI, not a Solicitation or Request for Proposals. It is not to be construed as a commitment by the U.S. Government to issue any solicitation or ultimately award a contract on the basis of this RFI, not to pay for any information submitted as a result of this request, nor does it commit the Government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of any comments.

Any funding proposals submitted in response to this request will not be considered. Responses to this notice must be received no later than the due date and time stated above in this notice. All materials submitted will become the property of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and will not be returned. USAID reserves the right to use information provided by respondents for USAID’s own purposes. While it is not the intention to make public any response to this RFI, proprietary and sensitive information must not be sent.

The USAID/Georgia Business Forecast will be updated when a determination has been made on if and how this program will be procured.

It should be noted that responding to this RFI will not give any advantage to any organization in any subsequent procurement. Only responses in English will be accepted.

Robert Claussen

/s/

Regional Contracting Officer, USAID/Caucasus

Response Considerations

Responses should include the following:

1. Cover page not to exceed one (1) page including:

a. Organization name and address;

b. Point of contact name, telephone number and e-mail address;

c. Organization Business Status – Small, Large, etc.

2. Additional Notes/ Instructions

Submit responses to this RFI to:

mchelidze@usaid.gov and RCOcaucasus@usaid.gov , no later than October 28, 2021.

Request for Information #72011421RFI00002 – USAID Georgia National Governance Program Draft Documents for Informational Purposes Only This is not a solicitation or Request for Proposals

29, Georgian-American Friendship Avenue Tbilisi 0131, Georgia Tel: (995 32) 254 4000 Fax: (995 32) 254 4145 georgia.usaid.gov

Description

The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to: (a) provide a basic overview of the intended USAID/Georgia National Governance Program; (b) determine the interest of capable organizations to provide USAID/Georgia with technical and advisory services; and (c) request comments and recommendations from stakeholders to identify ways we can work together to address Georgia’s governance challenges related to the performance of governance institutions at the national level. The USAID/Georgia National Governance Program aims to support USAID/Georgia’s core development objective of enhancing citizen-responsive governance to consolidate fragile democratic gains. This includes advancing the Government of Georgia’s (GoG) capacities to deliver citizen-responsive governance based on greater accountability, transparency, and institutional independence. In parallel, it includes strengthening the “demand-side” of citizen-responsive governance, empowering Georgian civil society and the private sector to demand accountability of governance institutions. Additional objectives include supporting the national government to strengthen the cybersecurity capabilities of key democratic institutions, ensuring the resilience of governance systems.

Preliminary Problem Statement

Robust and durable democratic governance requires transparency, citizen-responsive service delivery, and accountability to the public. This is built on citizen engagement in governance processes, including constant dialogue between officials and people they represent, in addition to a well-functioning set of legal frameworks and institutions and a system of checks and balances.

Over the past fifteen years, the GoG has implemented a series of ambitious governmental reforms intended to increase government effectiveness, transparency, and accountability by adopting new legislation in line with international and European standards, implementing institutional reforms to advance Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and strengthening the capacity of civil servants to deliver effective public services. The results of these reforms have been captured by reputable international evaluations, and Georgia has demonstrated progress and held leading positions in the region and among low- and medium-income countries. During the last several years, however, a tendency towards backsliding has been observed in different international rankings, including Freedom House’s Nations in Transit, World Governance Indicators, the Corruption Perception Index, and the World Justice Project indices.

Moreover, various surveys indicate that citizen satisfaction has not kept pace with Georgia’s positive past performance in international rankings, as seen in various surveys. Recent International Republic Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI) surveys demonstrate a deterioration in citizens’ perceptions of performance, openness, transparency and responsiveness to citizens of key government actors, including Parliament and the Cabinet, since 2016-2017. According to the latest NDI survey, conducted in July 2021, 55% of citizens think that the Parliament does not pass legislation that matters to them, 54% of citizens think that members of Parliament will not take action to resolve issues in their community, and 60% of citizens agree that Parliament does not regularly communicate with citizens.

Low engagement with citizens is captured in international evaluations as well. For instance, although Georgia scores quite high (81 out of 100 and 82 out of 100 in budget transparency and oversight, respectively) in the 2019 Open Budget Survey, public participation in the budget process continues to be very low at only 28 out of a possible 100 points.

Improved access to public information and proactive disclosure of public information has been one of the most significant commitments undertaken by Georgia under the Open Government Partnership. In 2013, the GoG adopted a decree on proactive disclosure of public information, which was a significant step towards increased transparency, but no additional measures have been taken since 2013, including the failure to adopt a stand-alone Law on Freedom of Information. According to a study conducted by the Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) in 2019, the average compliance rate of proactive accessibility of public information is just 55% - 16% lower than in 2014. For more than ten years, IDFI’s annual studies have detected a deteriorating tendency in response rates to requests for public information. The highest public information access levels were in 2013 (90%). In 2019 it was 83% - the lowest over the last five years. During 2019 the highest number of FOI requests declined by public institutions were linked to: internal audit reports; distance covered by the vehicles owned by public institutions; information on those employed based on administrative or labor agreements; and information on depreciated and sold state property.

Another area where assessments of Georgia’s progress have recently been mixed is corruption. Georgia has frequently been referred to as a very low corruption country. However, recent studies and international monitoring reports have gradually revealed that more complex forms of corruption are becoming a growing challenge for the country. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been assessing anti-corruption reforms in Georgia since 2004 using the Anti-Corruption Network (ACN) Monitoring mechanism. The “new challenge of high and complex corruption” facing Georgia and the need to “be a creative and active anti-corruption fighter” was first mentioned in the OECD Anti-Corruption Network (ACN) Fourth Monitoring Report in 2016. However, no recent progress has been made towards reforming the anti-corruption system or fulfilling the recommendations of the OECD ACN. The February 2019 OECD ACN progress report noted that zero of 22 recommendations showed significant progress, 17 were assessed as having some progress, and four of them indicated a clear lack of progress.

OECD ACN reports point at shortcomings in the process of anti-corruption policy planning and monitoring, including lack of evidence- and risk-based decision making and inclusive consultative process. In spite of changes in the legislation, there are still big gaps in the legislative framework as well as practical enforcement and monitoring of conflict of interest, ethics, asset declaration disclosure and whistleblowing among other issues.

In 2019-2020 Georgia was mentioned in the rankings of several international organizations, such as the Business Bribery Risk Index by Trace International, the Rule of Law index by World Justice Project (WJP), and the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) by Transparency International as demonstrating a deterioration in the corruption situation in the country. According to a Transparency International Georgia/Caucasus Resource Research Center survey (February-March 2020), 36% of citizens believe that abuse of power for personal gain by public officials is either common or very common in Georgia, while 51% of those surveyed think that corruption is not investigated properly when it involves high-ranking officials or influential people with links to the ruling party.

Increased corruption is associated with the following factors: weak checks and balances in the context of a single dominant party in the parliament and government; lack of reforms in the anti-corruption system (including in the areas of policy planning, prevention, detection, investigation and sanctions); ineffective and underutilized anti-corruption mechanisms such as whistleblowing, conflict of interest and ethics regulations; low transparency and accountability of key actors responsible for investigation and enforcement of corruption cases such as the Prosecutor’s Office and the Anti-Corruption Agency under the State Security Service. Data from the State Audit Office shows that in 2015-2017 only 12% of 1,740 reported corruption cases were investigated, with the Prosecutor’s Office having the worst record in this regard, having investigated only 3.7% of 1,237 cases of corruption.

The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that, in spite of many progressive steps, the country’s Parliament has not fully embraced its institutional role to oversee the executive due to one party dominance, and capacity challenges. The regulatory frameworks on oversight issues, including conflict of interests, ethics codes, asset declaration monitoring, dispute resolution in public procurements, etc. need to be further improved and, most importantly, effectively implemented. The State Audit Office, although independent by law, has not yet achieved the reputation of equivalent institutions in other countries, such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The fulfillment rate of their recommendations continues to be low and communication with key stakeholders, including Parliament and other oversight and governing institutions, needs continued improvement.

Media and civil society provide oversight of the government and are a necessary complement to the government system. However, there are concerns over a shrinking space for media and civil society as well as continued low levels of trust from citizens, which might further weaken public oversight and negatively impact the country’s democratic trajectory. The private sector and special interest groups often do not consider themselves to be contributors to policy and law-making processes or a critical part of external oversight, which further weakens the overall functioning of the governance system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge, and a litmus test for good governance processes around the globe. Analysis from the OECD identifies public procurement, economic stimulus packages, and integrity risk violations in public organizations as the most susceptible areas for abuse during the pandemic. Georgia has not been an exception to these risks and challenges. Like many countries, Georgia has struggled to find a balance between the provision of timely healthcare services, ensuring economic resilience and accessibility of public services and ensuring integrity, transparency and accountability of its governance systems and protection of human rights. Accountability, control, and oversight over the actions of the government and operations of public organizations are essential for ensuring an effective and efficient response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a time of crisis, the role of Parliament is more vital than ever to pass emergency laws, allocate resources and scrutinize government action. Many of the already known shortfalls of the governance system have been further revealed during the pandemic, especially in the areas of public procurement, access to public information, accountability to citizens, weak execution of oversight by the Parliament and other oversight institutions, and increased cybersecurity threats due to overreliance on digital platforms.

Anticipated Goal and Objectives

The anticipated Program will primarily support USAID/Georgia’s Strategic Development Objective 2 - Enhanced citizen-responsive governance consolidates fragile democratic gains.[footnoteRef:1] The project will build on previous gains - many of which have been supported by the U.S. Government and other donors - in the area of good governance. The proposed project will support governance activities across Georgia, both in the national and local contexts, with an anticipated budget of approximately $23 million over five years. [1: https://www.usaid.gov/georgia/cdcs]

The goal of the USAID/Georgia National Governance Program is to increase government accountability and responsiveness to citizens by enhancing the effectiveness and independence of governing institutions, strengthening the ecosystem for preventing and combating corruption, and empowering citizens to hold the government to account.

The Program anticipates supporting key institutions both within the executive and legislative branches including, but not limited to: the Parliament; State Audit Office; Administration of the Government; Civil Service Bureau; Public Defender’s Office; and select line ministries. The Program also envisages engagement with civil society, private sector, academia, and research institutions.

USAID anticipates three main objectives for the Program.

Objective 1: Increased effectiveness and independence of governing and oversight institutions;

Objective 2: Increased effectiveness and transparency of the anti-corruption system; and

Objective 3: Strengthened capacity of civil society and private sector coalitions to impact policy making and demand accountability.

In line with USAID/Georgia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and the Agency’s Private Sector Engagement Policy, the Program anticipates engagement with the private sector to address existing governance challenges and to build partnerships in achieving the anticipated objectives of the Program. This will include considering the use of market-based approaches, and the private sector’s capabilities and expertise. Illustrative examples of PSE activities include:

· Promotion and support for implementation/piloting of PPPs;

· PP dialogue facilitation: private sector integration into parliamentary committee work through engagement in law-making, RIAs, piloting private sector caucus, etc.; and

· Open governance: develop new Open Data standards and regulations to attract investment; build awareness of the potential economic value of making use of open data; catalyze ICT sector engagement for better governance.

Cybersecurity is anticipated to be a significant component of the new Program. Strengthening the cybersecurity of key democratic and governance institutions is recognized as a critical need in USAID/Georgia’s CDCS, the 2014 EU-Georgia Association Agreement, and in documents published by the GoG. The proposed Program anticipates working with existing government cyber professionals to improve their skills and build overall institutional capacity across national bodies, training a new cadre of professionals with a unified, cutting edge curriculum with incentives to choose government service vs the private sector, and supporting new policies and legislation to create a solid base for future growth and stability in the sector.

It is challenging to recruit and retain cybersecurity professionals to the public sector. After completion of the Program, USAID expects that Georgia’s cybersecurity workforce will be large, more professional, and more skilled, that young people will more often consider a career in cybersecurity, that sustained higher level academic and professional programs in cybersecurity will be developed or scheduled, and that government needs for cybersecurity will be better met through improvements in internal policies, staffing, and access to/use of technology.

Questions

USAID seeks your input, comments, and recommendations on any or all of the following questions below. Other questions and comments are also welcome. This is not a formal question period; therefore, USAID will not be providing responses. The USAID design team will review all comments and questions and use them to inform the development of the activity.

1. Are the initial proposed objectives and results achievable and/or realistic? If not, why? Please be specific. Are there additional objectives or results that you believe would make this Program more effective in achieving the stated purpose? What is the highest quantifiable, verifiable objective that is within the manageable interest of this activity?

2. What are the current strengths of the national government administration, and how can those strengths be reinforced and leveraged to achieve increased government accountability and responsiveness to citizens?

3. Where can USAID focus its anti-corruption investments to best deliver tangible, sustainable results? What good governance reforms and institutions (especially those outside the scope of explicit anti-corruption bodies) could best deliver anti-corruption results? What type of interventions have been most effective for anti-corruption at the national level in Georgia? Are there interventions that have proven effective in other countries?

4. USAID’s development strategy requires strong engagement with the private sector. How can the private sector be best engaged in preventing corruption and supporting good governance? What incentives can USAID or the GoG use to encourage private sector players to offer leverage to achieve the proposed objectives? Can you identify specific areas and mechanisms for private sector engagement with the government including parliament and other oversight institutions? Are there examples that have proven effective in other countries?

5. How can private sector and civil society cooperation be integrated into the design of this Program? What is the potential for cooperation between the private sector and civil society (including academic and research institutions) to demand government accountability? Can you identify any specific areas or mechanisms? Are there examples that have proven effective in other countries?

6. How can digital technologies be better leveraged to increase government accountability, transparency, and responsiveness to Georgian citizens? Are there case studies from similar countries that we can draw lessons from? If so, please describe. What would need to be done to ensure the cybersecurity of such digital technology (e.g., supporting legislation, improving cyber hygiene skills among civil servants)?

7. This Program will include at least $3M for interventions to support cybersecurity needs to increase government accountability and responsiveness to citizens. What types of interventions could be designed to strengthen the cyber resiliency of national governing and oversight institutions? What level of investment in cybersecurity components are necessary to achieve this result?

8. How would you prioritize investments in this Program (on a scale of 0 to 100%) between (a) Increasing effectiveness, accountability and independence of governing and oversight institutions; (b) Increased effectiveness and transparency of the anti-corruption system; and (c) Strengthening the capacity of civil society and private sector coalitions to demand accountability?

Any other suggestions you may wish to offer that will improve program design and implementation are welcome.

image1.jpeg