RFI 72049720RFI00001 USAID Indonesia Integrity Initiative.pdf

72049720RFI00001 USAID/Indonesia

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Date of Issuance: August 19, 2020 Reference No. : 72049720RFI00001 Preliminary Activity Title: USAID Indonesia Integrity Initiative

Deadline to Submit Responses: September 29, 2020; 8:00 am, Jakarta local time Submit Responses to: proposals-indo@usaid.gov

Dear Interested Parties:

The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to collect written information about an activity with the preliminary title of “USAID Indonesia Integrity Initiative,” in which USAID seeks to support the Government of Indonesia in its corruption prevention efforts through strengthening a culture of integrity for both public and private sectors.

This RFI is open for comments from any US or non-US organization.

This is an RFI, not a Request for Application (RFA) or Request for Request for Proposal (RFP). Do not submit any applications at this time; only the information requested in this RFI will be reviewed. Responses will be treated as confidential. A solicitation is expected to be released in early 2021.

At this time, a decision has not been finalized as to whether the instrument type will be acquisition or assistance. Therefore, this RFI is being posted on both grants.gov and beta.sam.gov.

USAID is seeking input regarding a list of inquiries contained in Attachment 2. The information provided will be used to help finalize the activity design in order to improve development outcomes. USAID may revise the structure and concept of the activity based on comments received but is not obligated to do so.

All responses should be sent using the cover page that is Attachment 2 to this RFI. All comments must be submitted electronically via email to proposals-indo@usaid.gov with the subject of “RFI: USAID Indonesia Integrity Initiative” no later than the date/time stated above.

The issuance of this RFI will not restrict the Government’s ultimate approach, if any. Respondents are advised that USAID is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information, answer questions or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information provided. Any information submitted in response to this notice is voluntary. Not responding to this request does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, if any issued.

mailto:proposals-indo@usaid.gov mailto:proposals-indo@usaid.gov

Please note that release of this RFI is not to be construed as a commitment by the U.S.

Government to issue any notice of funding opportunity or solicitation or ultimately award on the basis of this RFI. USAID is not responsible for any costs incurred in responding to this RFI nor will funding be made available prior to any award. Respondents are responsible for all costs incurred prior to award.

Thank you for your interest in USAID/Indonesia’s programs and we look forward to your comments.

Sincerely, Alexis McGinness Contracting/Agreement Officer USAID/Indonesia

Attachments:

1. Activity Description

2. Response Form (with questions)

Attachment 1 – Activity Description

Attachment 1 - Activity Description

Preliminary Activity Title: USAID/Indonesia Integrity Initiative Activity Purpose: Supporting the Government of Indonesia in its corruption prevention effort by strengthening of a culture of integrity for both the public and private sectors

Geographic Locations: Indonesia – National and USAID/Indonesia CDCS Priority

Provinces1 Period of Performance: Five years Anticipated Funding: USD 15-18 million Instrument Type: TBD

I. BACKGROUND

Indonesia scored 40 out of a high of 100 in Transparency International’s (TI) 2019 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), with a ranking of 85 out of 180 countries. Its score puts the country just below the international average of 43 and the Asia Pacific average of 45. For comparison, China ranked 41 (and the United States 69). Additional research indicates that close to seven out of 10 people in Indonesia believe corruption levels are worsening, representing the highest percentage in the region.

Indonesia received special attention in the 2019 CPI as a “country to watch,” due to growing pressure on civil society and weak(ening) oversight institutions, including changes to the power and independence of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/KPK). The 2019 report also focused on the relationship between politics, money, and corruption, noting that “corruption is more pervasive in countries where big money can flow freely into electoral campaigns” and recommending that governments “urgently address the corrupting role of big money in political party financing and the undue influence it exerts on our political systems.”

The activity will respond to recognition among stakeholders that the fight against corruption is now shifting focus from prosecution to prevention, echoing the government’s policy prioritization and public pronouncements. Aside from the political and economic imperatives driving this shift, stakeholders emphasize that it also signifies an overarching need to change mindsets and instill a culture of integrity and ethics. The proposed approach evolves accordingly, from a current focus on institutions and technical systems to a focus on beliefs and behaviors, agreeing that after years of assistance, the basic values and norms of government, business, and the general public need to change before laws, regulations, and other mechanisms can be sufficiently effective.

1 As stated in USAID/Indonesia's Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2021-2025, which is part of a recent bilateral agreement with the Government of Indonesia/the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), USAID will concentrate and integrate at least two-thirds of CDCS funding for national level policy work in eight priority provinces, including Banten, East Java, East Nusa Tenggara, Jakarta Special District, North Sumatra, Papua, South Sulawesi, and West Kalimantan.

https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/indonesia https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/2019_Report_-ExperiencesCorruptionImplicationsBusinessSouth-EastAsia_English.pdf https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2019-Asia-Pacific https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019

II. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Corruption remains one of Indonesia’s most intractable challenges, costing the government $614 million in 2019, the highest figure in five years. It reaches far and wide into Indonesian life, from parliament, the police, and the courts; to procurement, permitting, and licensing; to pharmaceutical supplies and land use. Corruption results not only in the siphoning off of public funds for private benefit, but can also lead to poor infrastructure, higher prices, increased poverty, environmental degradation, inflamed conflict, investor wariness, criminal financing, and a loss of public trust. The imperatives of COVID-19 will likely exacerbate its risks.

Indonesia had once been routinely praised for its fight against corruption, including the KPK’s near-perfect conviction rate and some success in asset recovery, totaling more than more than 2,112 billion rupiah between 2005 and 2017. In the last year, however, many stakeholders expressed particular concern regarding revisions to the KPK law.

Despite the large scope of corruption-related challenges, consistently over the course of consultations stakeholders expressed strongest concern over very specific areas, most notably:

procurement and bidding processes, the market dominance of state-owned enterprises, and the ways in which these dynamics interact to reinforce perceptions that corruption is a required cost of doing business. KPK data indicates that politicians and administrative officials represent the bulk of its criminal cases: in the period between 2004 and 2019, this includes 425 politicians, including 257 members of parliament, 119 mayors/regents, 28 institution/ministry heads, and 21 governors. The vast majority of these cases concerned bribery and corruption in the procurement of goods and services. Underlying nearly all stakeholder concerns remains the role of money politics, exacerbated by the expense of election campaigning, the absence of alternative sources of financing, and the need to recoup investments.

The 2019 TI report highlighted key best practices for addressing such issues, including managing conflicts of interests, controlling political financing, tackling preferential treatment, reinforcing checks and balances, and empowering citizens. These recommendations fully dovetail with stakeholder priorities across the consultations. Among related efforts, they highlight the importance of addressing conflicts of interest among both public and private sector actors;

increasing cooperation among anti-corruption stakeholders, including greater connections between the national and subnational levels; raising awareness of and participation in anti-corruption efforts and mechanisms among the public; and ensuring effective civil society oversight, particularly in the face of a shrinking civic space. The proposed activity responds to these recommendations and will continue to build upon stakeholder input and ownership as a key principle in Indonesia’s journey to self-reliance.

III. THEORY OF CHANGE

IF anti-corruption stakeholders prioritize prevention efforts, so that governmental and non-governmental actors work together at the national and subnational levels to strengthen ethical policies and best practices and raise awareness of and engagement in oversight and reporting mechanisms, THEN the Government of Indonesia will succeed in cultivating a culture of integrity and reducing the prevalence of corruption and its impact.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/02/19/2019-sees-fewer-corruption-cases-but-bigger-state-losses-icw.html https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/02/19/2019-sees-fewer-corruption-cases-but-bigger-state-losses-icw.html https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/11/02/expediting-asset-recovery-bill-for-indonesian-anti-corruption-effort/

IV. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

Goal: To support the Government of Indonesia in its corruption prevention efforts through strengthening a culture of integrity for both the public and private sectors.

Objectives:

1. To increase the implementation of policies and practices that reduce conflicts of interest.

2. To improve cooperation among key actors engaged in anti-corruption efforts.

3. To strengthen public education on, awareness of, and participation in anti-corruption efforts.

V. RELATIONSHIP TO MISSION ICS, CDCS and GOI STRATEGY

Relationship to USAID/Indonesia CDCS: Given the cross-cutting nature of corruption, the activity will support efforts under all Development Objectives (DO) of USAID/Indonesia’s 2020 - 2025 CDCS2. It most specifically contributes to DO 1: Effective Democratic Governance Strengthened, Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1: Governance Reforms Advanced, and in particular, Sub-IR 1.1.3: Increased integrity in public sector performance. The activity strongly aligns with the governance pillar of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Vision (Strengthen Governance Systems) and the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative (IPTI), particularly Goal 1: Institutional and Fiscal Integrity Strengthened.

Relationship with Other USAID-funded Activities: This activity strongly links with other USAID/Indonesia Democratic Resilience and Governance (DRG) activities, including efforts to increase the performance of public service delivery and improve budget allocation and execution via USAID/Indonesia’s Local Governance Enabling Environment (L-GEE) activity;

efforts to strengthen the capacity of local civil society to engage with local governments under USAID/Indonesia’s Madani activity; and efforts to bolster the accountability role of independent, public-interest media, and address the nexus between corruption and conflict, under the Mission’s Media Empowerment for Democratic Integrity and Accountability (MEDIA) award. The activity will also explore links to the objectives of other USAID activities, particularly those related to health, the environment, and economic development.

Relationship with the Indonesian Medium-term Development Plan: The activity aligns with the GOI’s Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN 2020-2024), including the areas of quality growth, infrastructure, and stability and public services transformation. It also supports key aspects of President Jokowi’s second-term agenda, specifically, reform of the investment climate, bureaucratic reform, and more efficient dispersal of the state budget. Most directly, it supports implementation of the National Strategy on Anti-Corruption, building on expressed priorities in the areas such as policy formation and effective regulation, coordination with related institutions, public relations, and anti-corruption socialization.

2 USAID/Indonesia is in finalizing its 2021-2025 Country Development Cooperative Strategy (CDCS) and will be provided when publicly available.

VI. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

The activity will continue USAID’s close partnership with the KPK while also building on relationships with other key entities, to foster a wider network of allies and alternative points of pressure. Direct technical assistance will focus on 1) strengthening cooperation between national and subnational counterparts; 2) strengthening cooperation between various government agencies; and 3) strengthening cooperation between government agencies and non-governmental stakeholders, including civil society, academia, and the private sector. Illustrative areas of emphasis include:

● Providing technical assistance in the harmonization of mandates, policies, regulations, laws, information technology systems, and data collection and analysis to help encourage integrated cooperation among anti-corruption entities.

● Supporting the drafting and implementation of outreach and education strategies by targeted bodies to raise awareness among government peers, local governments, the private sector, and the public of the specific efforts and roles of various anti-corruption bodies and how to access and increase use of reporting, protection, and other mechanisms.

● Continuing to promote and protect the role of non-governmental actors, such as civil society and academia, in the fight against corruption, with increased focus on the importance of engaging 1) the private sector and 2) youth in accountability and transparency efforts.

● Facilitating multi-stakeholder debate on international best practices and alternative models in key areas such as good corporate governance, competition policies, and political financing.

● Strengthening adaptation and implementation of international best practices, to potentially include areas such as anti-bribery management systems, anti-money laundering systems, whistleblower protection, integrity pacts, and the use of technology to reduce entry points for corruption.

Specific areas of activity will be refined via further consultations with stakeholders, who will drive prioritization of assistance in recognition that sustainability requires cultivating ownership from the outset.

Precise locations of subnational efforts will be determined at a later stage but will be in line with USAID/Indonesia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) priority provinces.

Further, subnational efforts will leverage KPK data and other inputs and collaborate and coordinate with other USAID activities. Early indications suggest higher prevalence of cases and risks in areas such as Greater Jakarta, East Java, West Java, North Sumatra, East Kalimantan, and Papua.

Expected Results: At the end of five years, the activity expects to see a stronger culture of integrity in Indonesia, as evidenced by increased cooperation among anti-corruption stakeholders, greater awareness and use of anti-corruption mechanisms, and improved implementation of anti-corruption standards. Indicators will include Indonesia’s annual score and ranking on TI’s CPI as well as standard indicators such as the number of mechanisms for external oversight of public resource use supported by USG assistance (DR.2.4-2) and the number of anti-corruption measures proposed, adopted or implemented due to USG assistance, to include laws, policies, or procedures (DR 2.4-4). Further, various baseline surveys and studies are expected to be conducted at the national and subnational levels to provide additional data and reference points through which impact and results can be more accurately assessed.

Program Beneficiaries: Based on initial self-identification and recommendations from other stakeholders, direct beneficiaries will include the KPK and other government entities, likely including the Ombudsman, the Witness and Victims Protection Agency, the Antitrust Commission, and Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises as well as non-governmental actors such as civil society organizations, academic units, and private sector stakeholders focusing on anti-corruption and related issues. The ultimate beneficiary will be the Indonesian public, which otherwise bears the cost of corruption, through higher prices, lower quality services, reduced political voice, and weaker government accountability.

Attachment 2 – Response Form (Questions)

Attachment 2 (Questions)

RESPONSE FORM

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) NO. 72049720RFI00001

General Information

Name of Organization: _______________________________________________

Contact Person:

Name: _______________________________________________ Position Title: _______________________________________________ Email Address: _______________________________________________

Type of Organization:

____ US Organization, Large Business

____ US Organization, Small Business

____ Indonesian Organization

____ Other - Please indicate: _________________________________

Questions (Please note that you are not obliged to answer all questions)

1. Despite years of assistance to the “community of accountability” in Indonesia, and great achievements by many Indonesian stakeholders, corruption remains a particular challenge in the country. Why do you think this is? What changes to the approach - in both addressing corruption and in supporting such efforts - would you recommend?

2. Within the number of challenges within the area of anti-corruption (within specific sectors as well as specific issues), which focus(es) would you prioritize, and why?

3. In addition to the Corruption Eradication Commission, which other governmental partners do you believe play a particularly important role? Which could and should be playing a more prominent one?

4. What role do you see for non-governmental partners - such as civil society organizations, independent media, and academia - and what kind of support would you recommend helping strengthen this role?

5. How do you believe citizens could and should be more empowered as part of anti-corruption efforts?

6. How would you identify and address the differences that different groups experience (women, youth, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous groups, people with disabilities, people living in remote/isolated/rural locations, people living under the poverty line), both in the impact of corruption on their lives, and their ability to engage in anti-corruption efforts?

7. How do you view the position of the private sector in combating corruption? What kind of assistance might be appropriate to further catalyze private sector actors in anti-corruption efforts?

8. What role do you see technology playing in anti-corruption efforts?

9. What do you believe will be the short- and longer-term impacts of COVID-19 on the anti-corruption climate? How do you feel COVID-19 might impact implementation and what mitigating measures might you recommend?

10. What additional trends might you expect over the next five years that could impact the environment for corruption and anti-corruption efforts?

11. In what subnational locations do you believe the activity should focus? What particular subnational needs do you believe the activity should help to address?

12. What measures for sustainability (of interventions and results) would you recommend the activity take?

13. Do you believe the goal, objectives, and expected outcomes of this activity would be more effectively served by assistance (a cooperative agreement) or acquisition (a contract)?

What are the pros and cons of either mechanism?

14. Would you advocate that further development of this activity be conducted via co-design?

What form would you recommend that co-design take?

15. USAID’s New Partnership Initiative seeks USAID to partner with new and underutilized, local and locally established partners. How would you recommend USAID incorporate this initiative into the activity’s procurement strategy?

[END OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION]