SBC APS - ROUND 1.pdf

Issue Date of Round 1: April 16, 2021

Questions Deadline before the Submission of Round 1 Concept Papers Due: April 23, 2021

Deadline for Submission of Concept Papers for Round 1: May 14, 2021

Subject: Social and Behavior Change (SBC) Research, Annual Program Statement (APS) No. 7200AA21APS00008

Opportunity Title: Round 1 Call For Concept Papers

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 98.001

To: All Interested Respondents/Parties:

Pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the United States Government, represented by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Bureau for Global Health (GH), Office of Population and Reproductive Health (PRH) invites interested Applicants to submit a Concept Paper that focuses on strengthen the generation and utilization of social and behavior change (SBC) evidence to improve the uptake and continuation of healthy behaviors.

TheSocial and Behavior Change (SBC) Research Round 1: is not a Request for Application (RFA) but rather a request for Concept Paper(s) in response to this Round published under the Social and Behavior Change Annual Program Statement (SBC APS). To be competitive, the Concept Paper submission must be fully responsive to all directions under this Round and SBC APS. Based on the submitted Concept Paper, USAID will determine whether to request a Full Application from an eligible organization. Issuance of this Round does not constitute an award or commitment on the part of the U.S. Government, nor does it commit the U.S. Government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of Concept Paper(s) or Application(s). Issuance of award is subject to the availability of funds and the interest and requirements of USAID as well as the viability of eventual Full Application(s) received.

To be eligible for award, the Applicant must provide all information as required and meet eligibility standards of this APS Round. This funding opportunity is posted on www.grants.gov, and may be amended. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that the APS Round has been downloaded from www.grants.gov in its entirety as USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion process. In case of difficulty registering on www.grants.gov or accessing the APS Round, please contact the grants.gov Helpdesk at 1- 800-518-4726 or via email at support@grants.gov for technical assistance.

Please send any questions by the due date listed above to Mr. Marcus Moon at mmoon@usaid.gov. Responses to questions received prior to the deadline will be furnished to all potential Applicants through grants.gov.

Thank you for your interest in USAID programs.

Sincerely, Alisa J. Dunn Agreement Officer Office of Acquisition and Assistance

M/OAA/GH/POP

http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/

SECTION I: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION 4

A. Round 1 Background 4 B. Round 1 Program Description 4 C. Round 1 Expected Results 5

SECTION II: AWARD INFORMATION 9

A. Funding 9 B. Period of Performance 9

SECTION III: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION 10

Please see the SBC Research APS for eligibility information. 10

SECTION IV: CONCEPT PAPER SUBMISSION INFORMATION 11

A. Round 1 Concept Paper Submission Instructions 11 B. Round 1 Concept Paper Content and Format 11 C. Co-Creation Process 13 D. Full Application Process 15 E. Funding Restrictions 16

SECTION V: ROUND 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA 17

APPENDIX A: Acronym List 19

APPENDIX B: USAID Priority Countries 20

APPENDIX C: Socio-Ecological Model for Social Behavior Change 24

Social and Behavior Change Research: Round 1

SECTION I: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Office of Population and Reproductive Health (PRH) is pleased to announce Round 1 under the Social and Behavior Change (SBC) Research Annual Program Statement (APS). The overarching goal of this APS is to help accelerate countries’ progress towards their health and development goals through key investments in SBC learning and research utilization. New investments in SBC research will advance sustainable improvements in the health, well-being, and development of the populations in USAID priority countries by building local capacity to analyze data, conduct research, and incorporate evidence-based SBC practices into health and development programs and systems at global, regional, and country levels.

A. Round 1 Background

Please see the SBC APS for the overall APS background information. Additional information pertinent to Round 1 only is included below.

B. Round 1 Program Description

USAID’s behavioral science investments are designed to advance research and technical assistance that improves the health of women, men, children, and their communities, and to strengthen local capacity to design, lead, and monitor SBC research and learning efforts in USAID-assisted countries. The purpose of the SBC Research APS is to strengthen the generation and utilization of SBC evidence that has the potential to address the agency of individuals and communities to improve the uptake and continuation of healthy behaviors, including but not limited to use of family planning, care-seeking at onset of illness, adequate complementary feeding, childhood immunizations, use of health and nutrition services, and other health outcomes. Agency is defined as the ability to set preferences, intentions, and goals, and then act on them: it is a cross-cutting factor in the Socio-Ecological Model for SBC, and relates to both individuals and enabling environments.1 The Fogg Behavioral Model also identifies motivation and ability as the two critical elements causing behavior change.2,3 Agency is a distinct concept, but is related to empowerment. Reproductive Empowerment (RE) is a framework that defines empowerment as the ability to both make informed decisions and act on behavioral preferences

1 Appendix C provides an image of the Socio-Ecological Model for Social Behavior Change.

2 Agha et al. Understanding the Mechanism through Which Unfavorable Social Norms Affect Contraceptive Use (2020) https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-116933/v1 3 Fogg Behavior Model https://behaviormodel.org/ https://behaviormodel.org/ free from violence, retribution or fear.4 In this framework, the ability to enact healthy reproductive behaviors is therefore related to both one’s motivations to enact those behaviors, as well as an enabling environment to act, influenced by system factors, and social and gender norms reinforced by household and community reference groups.

To achieve the purpose of the SBC Research APS, Round 1 will focus on three key areas of work: 1) research to answer priority social and behavioral science questions around agency and empowerment to improve the uptake and continuation of healthy behaviors; 2) research to improve the monitoring and evaluation of SBC programs and measurement of key indicators;

and 3) technical assistance for improved SBC research utilization in the design of USAID and host country government-funded health and development programs and policies.

C. Round 1 Expected Results

The Round 1 award(s) will contribute to the APS’s overarching goal and purpose through the three key results described in this section.

Validating the priority needs and gaps within these results will take place throughout the APS co-creation process. This co-creation process is described in more detail in Section IV of this Round. Co-creation enables coordinated problem-solving and solution development, making it easier to identify opportunities for innovation and systems changes, and also offers a valuable platform for forging new connections and partnerships through which to implement activities.

Round 1 Result 1: Generate new evidence through the implementation and rigorous evaluation of innovative SBC interventions addressing the agency of individuals and communities to improve the uptake and continuation of healthy behaviors at scale.

Addressing evidence gaps on how to design and implement effective and sustainable interventions to address the agency of individuals and communities is critical for improving healthy behavioral outcomes. There is widespread evidence of the importance of social and system factors beyond individual knowledge and attitudes in determining health-seeking behaviors, including social and gender norms, power dynamics, and structural, environmental determinants like access, quality, and cost of seeking and continuing to utilize health services.

Addressing individual, interpersonal and community agency requires an improved enabling environment: system-level SBC activities can help eliminate barriers to individual and community agency and improve health seeking behavior. This can include, but is not limited to interventions that improve the client-provider experience through reduced provider bias, cash

4 See A Conceptual Framework for Reproductive Empowerment (ICRW 2018) https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICRW_ReproEmpowerment_ConceptualFramework_Brief_WebReady_v14.pdf https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICRW_ReproEmpowerment_ConceptualFramework_Brief_WebReady_v14.pdf https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICRW_ReproEmpowerment_ConceptualFramework_Brief_WebReady_v14.pdf transfer or voucher programs to help eliminate financial insecurities around decision-making, and/or health system strengthening through improved efficiency and effective use of health resources. There is compelling evidence that coupling community-level behavior change activities with structural programs like cash and food transfers can both improve the sustainability and impact of the structural interventions, while also positively affecting downstream behaviors like interpersonal violence.5,6,7,8 Interventions that improve an individual’s sense of agency, self-efficacy, and empowerment, while also focusing on system strengthening, inter-community trust, and cohesion, can therefore have the potential to affect multiple behaviors at the same time.9,10 Increased investment in these kinds of interventions is necessary, as documentation on how to best design sustainable interventions at scale that address individual, community and system barriers to agency, and an explicit understanding of how such interventions impact behavioral outcomes sustainably over time, remains fragmented.

Illustrative research questions for consideration include:

● What contributes to agency for health seeking behaviors at individual, interpersonal, and community levels? How do we measure agency at these different levels, and within various population sub-groups (e.g. by socio-economic status)?

● How do social and gender norms inhibit and enable individuals’ agency to define and act on preferences and intentions (e.g. fertility intentions, age at first marriage, attending ANC during pregnancy, child feeding preferences, seeking healthcare at onset of illness)?

● How do community group engagement activities designed and led by local actors affect the social norms and agency of community members, individually and collectively? How do these shifts in norms and agency affect behaviors (e.g. improved sanitation, longer duration of breastfeeding, better adherence to drug regimens, reduced interpersonal violence)?

● How can system level SBC interventions affect healthy behaviors at scale (e.g.

strengthening health promotion units within ministries of health, social accountability interventions, increasing provider motivation to improve quality of care)?

5 FP High Impact Practices: Community Group Engagement Brief https://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/briefs/community-group-engagement/ 6 Ahmed et al. (2020) Social protection and sustainable poverty reduction: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh https://www.ifpri.org/publication/social-protection-and-sustainable-poverty-reduction-experimental-evidence-bangladesh 7 Roy, Hidrobo, Hoddinott, Akhmed. (2017) Transfers, behavior change communication, and intimate partner violence: Postprogram evidence from rural Bangladesh https://www.ifpri.org/publication/transfers-behavior-change-communication-and-intimate-partner-violence-postprogram 8 Population Council Age at Marriage research https://www.popcouncil.org/research/child-marriage-prevention-and-supporting-married-girls 9 Murray et al. (2020) A qualitative exploration of mechanisms of intimate partner violence reduction for Zambian couples receiving the Common Elements Treatment Approach intervention https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620306778 10 Christensen et al. (forthcoming) https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hUT4iHAKPA373Xn6A_QTzi4x87IMhnR1NlMT- _A8wbo/edit#slide=id.gb3aff60cc3_0_3 https://www.ifpri.org/publication/transfers-behavior-change-communication-and-intimate-partner-violence-postprogram https://www.ifpri.org/publication/transfers-behavior-change-communication-and-intimate-partner-violence-postprogram https://www.popcouncil.org/research/child-marriage-prevention-and-supporting-married-girls https://www.popcouncil.org/research/child-marriage-prevention-and-supporting-married-girls

● What are the implications of the Reproductive Empowerment framework for community-and clinic-based SRH programming, and how does increasing reproductive empowerment and agency influence service use and health outcomes?

● Can longer term outcomes, including resilience in the face of shocks, be measured in communities where agency and empowerment have been improved and sustained through locally-led SBC interventions?

● Are the outcomes of SBC interventions reinforced or hindered by intersectoral approaches?

Round 1 Result 2: Improved monitoring and evaluation of SBC interventions, including improved understanding and utilization of key SBC indicators.

Measurement of SBC interventions, including process documentation, consistent usage of validated SBC indicators, and adaptive monitoring and evaluation all remain persistent programmatic challenges. Cost effectiveness, scale and sustainability of SBC interventions, consistency in measurement, and theory of change process documentation have all been identified as critical evidence gaps in published literature on SBC interventions.11 Measurement and indicators around agency and empowerment specifically are fragmented, though recent efforts have been proposed to encourage more shared learning around promising indicators.12,13 It is critical to improve the consensus and validation around SBC indicators, including but not limited to agency and empowerment, first through increased research and testing, and then integration of proven and validated indicators within SBC programming’s routine data collection in project monitoring and evaluation.

Improved monitoring and evaluation of SBC interventions within health and development programming is also crucial to capture unintended consequences of interventions, both positive and negative, in addition to neutral effects or failures to alter key behavioral intermediate factors, outcomes, and indicators. There is great need to understand what is happening in current donor funded and host country government supported health and development interventions that have SBC activities: how they are or are not working, what behavioral outcomes are or are not being achieved, who is benefiting or being left out, and how interventions should be improved moving forward. More consistent adaptive monitoring can help improve strategic investment in SBC tools, methods, and activities that will have the highest impact on behavioral outcomes.

Innovative research tools and solutions that go beyond impact evaluations and randomized controlled trials, but produce high quality, actionable evidence for improved SBC interventions

11 Breakthrough RESEARCH (2019) Developing Research and Learning Agendas to Strengthen Social and Behavior Change Programming.

12 Donald et al. (2020) Measuring Women’s Agency https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545701.2019.1683757 13 Bhan et al. (2020) Measuring Women’s Agency and Gender Norms in Family Planning: What do we know and where do we go?

and outcomes continue to be needed. This involves strengthening the capacity of local health systems and institutions to collect routine SBC data at the community level to connect with facility and systems level data for improved health and development planning. Strategic partnerships with local institutions, including governments, civil society, the private sector, and universities to lead and conduct research and evaluation activities is critical to better understand the scale, effectiveness, and sustainability of SBC activities in health and development interventions.

Round 1 Result 3: Improved research utilization of SBC evidence in the design, implementation, and evaluation of other USAID and host country government-funded health and development programs.

Research utilization remains a critical challenge in donor and government-funded health and development programs. Moving beyond the pilot stage of innovative research to adoption and scale-up of evidence-based practices is critical for the sustainability and improved impact of health and development programming. Addressing evidence gaps in both the design and improved monitoring and evaluation of SBC activities will involve not only research to generate new knowledge, but also related technical assistance designed to ensure that new evidence and knowledge generated in recent years leads to increased understanding and action among policymakers, program managers, and other key stakeholders who can apply it. Research utilization will involve both an increased understanding of how SBC activities in health and development programming can better improve the uptake and continuation of healthy behaviors, and improved tools and capacity to monitor and evaluate SBC activities, including incorporation of validated SBC indicators within routine data collection efforts. Improved research utilization will require both knowledge management and dissemination through other global projects, communities of practice, and normative bodies, as well as local capacity strengthening at district and country levels to adopt evidence around agency and empowerment within the design and monitoring of health and development programming. Dissemination of research findings should be packaged in easily digestible, audience-friendly formats. After dissemination, tracking actual utilization of research in the form of adapted program implementation strategies or activities and health policies is critical.

SECTION II: AWARD INFORMATION

A. Funding

Under Round 1, USAID may issue up to two awards with a combined ceiling up to $38 million.

One or two awards could be made with ceilings determined by the amount of funding available and the specific activities proposed by the Apparently Successful Applicant(s). The total combined ceiling of awards under Round 1 will not exceed $38 million USD, and is by no means guaranteed to equal $38 million USD. Please note that a portion of the ceiling is anticipated to be funded by field support, which can be unpredictable. As such, the ceiling does not equate to the actual total award funding; further information will be included in the request for full applications for selected applicants and/or consortia.

For the award(s) results from Round 1 of the SBC Research APS, USAID strongly encourages that approximately 25 percent of total obligated funding is utilized by local organizations in the countries in which the project is working.

B. Period of Performance

For Round 1, the anticipated start date for the award(s) is on or about December 1, 2021.

SECTION III: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Please see the SBC Research APS for eligibility information.

SECTION IV: CONCEPT PAPER SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Round 1 Concept Paper Submission Instructions

For questions on this Round 1 document, please submit all questions via email to Marcus Moon (mmoon@usaid.gov) and Alisa Dunn (adunn@usaid.gov) by the deadline specified on the Cover Page.

Applicants may submit Round 1 concept papers that present their proposed approach to achieve Results 1, 2 and 3 in Section I above. Concept papers only addressing one Result will not be accepted nor reviewed.

For Round 1, interested Applicants should submit a Concept Paper to Mr. Marcus Moon via email at mmoon@usaid.gov and Ms. Alisa Dunn via email at adunn@usaid.gov. Only electronic copies of concept papers will be accepted. The concept papers must be received by the deadline on the cover page of this document for Round 1 (demonstrated by the timestamp on the email when received by USAID).

When emailing a concept paper, each applicant must include the APS number and state Round 1 in the subject line of all emails and file name of all attachments. USAID’s email server cannot handle more than 25 MBs of attachments per email. If the applicant must divide the submission into more than one email, please number the emails in the subject line and indicate in the email’s subject line the desired sequence of emails (i.e., APS #, Round 1, Email 1 of 3). It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all necessary documentation is complete and received on time. In the event of technical difficulties, please contact Marcus Moon at the email address above.

All concept papers received by the submission deadline on the Cover Page will be reviewed for eligibility, and responsiveness to the APS and Results specific to the Round, and the required format. Section V Concept Paper Evaluation Criteria addresses the technical review procedures for the concept papers.

B. Round 1 Concept Paper Content and Format

This section provides guidance for the structure of the concept paper. To facilitate the competitive review of concept papers, USAID will consider only concept papers conforming to the format prescribed below.

mailto:mmoon@usaid.gov mailto:adunn@usaid.gov mailto:mmoon@usaid.gov mailto:adunn@usaid.gov

The concept paper must be written in English and must adhere to the following page limit for the Technical Section. Applicants must respond to Results 1, 2, and 3 and the page limit of the technical section is six (6) pages. The concept paper must be written in Times New Roman 12-point font, on standard 8.5” x 11” paper, and single spaced with no less than one inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Figures, graphics, and tables may have less than Times New Roman 12-point font but must be legible. Any submissions OVER SIX PAGES WILL NOT BE EVALUATED. The concept paper needs to be in either PDF or Microsoft Word format (.docx). Under 5 CFR 1320, the Paperwork Reduction Act, only electronic copies of the concept paper will be accepted.

The concept paper must be prepared according to the structural format set forth below.

(i) Cover Page (1 page in length; this page is not included in the 6 page limit): The cover page must include the APS number, Round number, name of the applicant and the title of the concept paper. In addition, the cover page must provide a contact person at the organization, including the individual’s name, title or position within the organization, mailing address, email address, and telephone number.

(ii) Informational Data (1 page in length; these response components are informational and will not be evaluated; this page is not included in the 6 page limit) ⮚ What role do you see your organization playing: prime partner, sub-partner/consortia partner, or either?

⮚ Nominate 1-3 individuals (include name, title, employing organization, email and telephone number) to represent the team in the co-creation workshop. Describe, very briefly, why the individuals you are nominating are the best people to engage in robust, creative, technical dialogue and design related to the results for Round 1.

Individuals whose focus is on business development will not be considered for participation in the workshop. USAID needs this information for the preparation of the co-creation meeting, but will not evaluate the concept paper submissions in this area. USAID reserves the right to disapprove nominated individuals and request additional/different nominations at its discretion. It is essential that the participants nominated be able to participate in the workshop full time and at their own (or their organization’s) expense. Participation costs will not be reimbursed by USAID.

(iii)Technical Approach (3-6 pages in length; this section will be evaluated): This section must address the program description and results in Section I of this document. The technical approach must:

1. Technical Approach: This section must address the program description and three Results in Section I of this document. The technical approach must:

a. Demonstrate a sound understanding of the current research on behavioral science in the areas of agency and empowerment and their relation to the uptake and continuation of key health behaviors.

b. Describe the applicant’s proposed, overarching approach to achieving the Round 1 purpose and three results.

c. For each of the three Round 1 results, include relevant, appropriate, and feasible illustrative activities and outcomes to achieve the results. At least one illustrative activity must be proposed for each result. This approach should link to your organization’s expertise and experience as described below.

2. Organizational Capability:

a. Provide a clear and succinct narrative of relevant organizational capability and technical expertise, including specific relevant strengths and potential contributions, in relation to the overall APS purpose and the focus of Round 1.

b. Demonstrate that the organization has experience operating in USAID focus countries, including strong, proven relationships and collaboration with host-country actors and institutions.

3. Staffing and management: Present the staffing plan and management roles needed to implement the proposed technical approach for both core and field support, emphasizing the technical skills and capability of proposed staff in the field of behavioral science and research.

Additional instructions and criteria for full application submissions will be provided after evaluation/review of concept papers, co-creation process (if applicable), and when full applications are requested from selected applicant(s).

C. Co-Creation Process

The primary component of the co-creation process will be a focused and intensive group workshop that may extend beyond one (1) day; location and duration may differ by each Round.

If held, in-person participation in the workshop will be required for all successful concept paper applicants. Discussions may continue between USAID and applicants and among applicants after the workshop is completed. Note: Travel costs--and any other costs associated with attending the workshop--will not be reimbursed by USAID. If a successful concept paper applicant cannot attend the co-creation workshop in person, their concept paper will be removed from consideration for award and cannot be a prime applicant at the full application stage. Note: if co-creation takes a different form than a workshop for any Round, the Round document will specify the process.location and duration may differ by each round

The goals of the co-creation workshop will be to explore and validate key challenges and problems, and then jointly develop promising solutions or adapt and expand upon existing solutions, which will in turn become the potential sub-results or activities that will ultimately lead to the accomplishment of the results specific to the Round. Ideas described within the Concept Papers may be discussed and further developed in the workshop, but workshop thinking, and possibly eventual full applications, will not be limited to these ideas. The workshop is also intended to help identify potential consortia and partnerships to support these new or existing solutions and activities. This may result in organizations moving forward with implementation, if an award is made, of the solution(s) based on essential and complementary knowledge, skills, capacities, and networks. More broadly, the workshop will facilitate learning, sharing, and networking across a range of partners and relevant technical experts. The workshop, therefore, may include technical experts, potential resource partners14, and end users invited by USAID, in addition to those Applicants who submitted successful concept papers. Given these goals, potential participants must be willing to share expertise and ideas, and must welcome a diversity of perspectives and expertise, with the common goal of learning and innovating together to achieve outcomes.

Note on additional partners/resources: Until full applications are submitted, both the applicant and USAID may identify and include potential additional technical partners and/or potential resource partners. If additional technical or resource partners are identified prior to the co-creation workshop, invitations will be sent to the potential partners to participate in the workshop. All additional technical partners may be included as part of a subsequent full application if there is agreement to do so between the potential partner, the original concept paper applicant, and USAID, but this is not guaranteed. Discussions with potential resource partners may continue throughout each Rounds process and during implementation.

USAID reserves the right to remove collaboration participants from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on activity concept, design, award terms, conditions, or cost/price within a reasonable time, the participant fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner, or the U.S. Government believes it is in its best interest.

Note: None of USAID’s communication during the co-creation process provided by this APS should be interpreted as a commitment to making an award of USAID funding.

14 Shared resourcing may be accomplished through funding by USAID, the award recipient, and/or third parties (“resource partners”), either through cash resources or the exchange of other resources, both tangible and intangible, such as in-kind contributions, expertise, intellectual property, brand value, high-value coordination, and access to key people, places, and information. Co-investing does not require equally shared resourcing (such as 1:1 leverage), but rather resource contributions that are appropriate to the specific project’s objectives, considering the comparative advantages brought by the participation of each party and the award type.

Applicants are advised that participation in the co-creation process under Rounds of this APS is entirely at their own risk; the Government is not responsible for any cost incurred by the Applicant, if the Applicant decides to accept the invitation to co-create with USAID. A commitment to an award of USAID funding is only made when an award implementing mechanism (agreement or grant) is signed.

USAID anticipates that the workshop for Round 1 will be held virtually on /about June 15- 17, 2021 due to Covid restrictions. Participation in the workshop will be required for all successful concept paper applicants, regardless of whether the applicant has indicated interest in being a prime- or a sub-partner in an eventual award. Final details will be shared with successful concept paper applicants, at which time applicants will also be notified if the successful concept papers will be shared amongst the successful applicants. As stated in Section IV of the APS, concept papers should be free of any intellectual property that the applicant wishes to protect, as the concept papers may be shared with other organizations as part of the co-creation process.

Note: Any costs associated with attending the workshop will not be reimbursed by USAID.

If a successful concept paper applicant cannot attend the co-creation workshop virtually, their concept paper will be removed from consideration for award.

D. Full Application Process

After the co-creation workshop, if the Merit Review Committee recommends to the AO a full application(s) is warranted, full application instructions and criteria will be provided to the applicant(s) or groups of applicants that are proposing to work together. All full applications will be reviewed by the Merit Review Committee for their technical merit against the full application evaluation criteria. Using its technical expertise, the Merit Review Committee may suggest revisions and additions to the proposed project as well as potential partners and resources. USAID will continue to have robust communication with applicants, potential partners, and other key stakeholders regarding the technical substance of the evolving approach, as well as the identity and roles of proposed or additional partners. USAID may request that key personnel of applicants deemed responsive and eligible deliver an oral presentation describing their proposed technical approach to inform the technical merit review.

Agreement Officer Determination. If the Merit Review Committee recommends application(s) for funding, its review will be shared with the Agreement Officer for cost review and analysis, final approval, and award negotiation. The Apparently Successful Applicant(s) may also be asked to provide more information about its technical approach, capacity, management and organization, proposed cost and budget, responsibility, and representations and certifications.

The Agreement Officer will engage in final review, negotiation, and determinations of award instrument type, responsibility, and cost reasonableness, and will draft an award instrument, to be reviewed by the Apparently Successful Applicant(s). The standard provisions for awards are generally prescribed by law and regulation and will vary by award type (cooperative agreement or grant). Information regarding provisions will be offered to the Apparently Successful Applicant(s) when the award type is identified and the award instrument is drafted. USAID reserves the right to accept applications in their entirety or to select only portions of the application to award. If the Apparently Successful Applicant(s) and USAID cannot arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement, the Agreement Officer will not make the award(s), which will be at no cost to the Government.

If multiple awards are made, these recipients are expected to collaborate closely throughout the entire period of performance.

E. Funding Restrictions

Construction is not an allowable activity for any awards under this APS. Also, USAID does not allow reimbursement of pre-award costs for any award(s) under this APS.

SECTION V: ROUND 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Concept papers will be reviewed by a Selection Committee according to the review criteria described below. The purpose of this review is to ensure that prospective partner(s) bring appropriate capabilities, experiences, and potential contributions to the co-creation process - and ultimately to the implementation of activities supporting the overall purpose and results of the SBC APS and Round 1. The final selection of successful concept papers will be determined by the Agreement Officer. A concept paper is determined to be successful if it receives a Pass overall based on the three criteria below. Criteria 1-3 below are listed in descending order of importance.

1. Technical approach: concept papers will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant clearly articulates a relevant and feasible technical approach for each of the Round 1 results and convincingly demonstrates the rationale of how the approach(es) will achieve such results. The proposed methodology must incorporate innovative and new ways of thinking but also build upon best practices and lessons learned/developed by the applicant, other organizations, or USAID under similar programs. The proposed approach(es) must incorporate bold and innovative ideas for cross-sectoral partnerships and fostering stronger relationships, capacity, and leadership among local actors and institutions in host-country environments. Illustrative activities will be evaluated on their feasibility, appropriateness, and likelihood to contribute to the achievement of the results.

The concept paper must demonstrate a strong understanding of research and research utilization methods in behavioral science that are relevant to the Round 1 results. Concept papers will be assessed on the extent to which local partner capacity, performance, and quality improvement are central elements of the technical approach and measures of success. The concept paper must articulate the proposed approach(es) to ensure local ownership, sustainability and institutionalization, as appropriate.

2. Organizational capacity: concept papers must demonstrate depth and breadth of experience/ability to carry out the proposed technical approach(es) and activities for the Round 1 results. Such capabilities and experience must be relevant and appropriate for the SBC Research APS Round 1 results. The concept paper must demonstrate that the organization has experience conducting research and operating in USAID focus countries, including a history of close collaboration with local actors and institutions in host countries.

3. Staffing and management: concept papers will be evaluated on the extent to which the management and staffing plan demonstrates that the applicant can effectively and efficiently execute the proposed technical approach via the narrative. An organogram may be used to illustrate staffing and management capacity. The concept paper must emphasize the technical skills and capability of proposed staff in the field of behavioral science and research, and connection to local actors and institutions in host countries.

Additional instructions and criteria for full application submissions will occur after evaluation of concept papers, co-creation workshop (if necessary), and when full applications are requested from selected applicant(s).

APPENDIX A: Acronym List

ADS Automated Directives System

AO Agreement Officer

AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative

APS Annual Program Statement

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System

FP Family Planning

FP/RH Family Planning and Reproductive Health

GH USAID’s Bureau for Global Health

IEE Initial Environmental Examination

IR Intermediate Result

MCHN Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

MRC Merit Review Committee

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PRH Office of Population and Reproductive Health

SAM System for Award Management

SBC Social and Behavior Change

SRH Sexual and Reproductive Health

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD US Dollars

USG United States Government

APPENDIX B: USAID Priority Countries

FP/RH Focus Countries USAID advances and supports voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs in nearly 40 countries around the world. Family planning priority countries have been identified based on key demographic and health indicators. These countries are:

● Afghanistan

● Bangladesh

● Democratic Republic of Congo

● Ethiopia

● Ghana

● Haiti

● India

● Kenya

● Liberia

● Madagascar

● Malawi

● Mali

● Mozambique

● Nepal

● Nigeria

● Pakistan

● Philippines

● Rwanda

● Senegal

● South Sudan

● Tanzania

● Uganda

● Yemen

● Zambia

Also, USAID is a founding member of the Ouagadougou Partnership that seeks to integrate family planning and reproductive health in seven additional francophone West African countries:

● Benin

● Burkina Faso

● Côte d’Ivoire

● Guinea

● Mauritania

● Niger

● Togo

MCHN Priority Countries

Maternal and Child Health programs currently focus on 25 countries that represent more than 66% of maternal and child deaths.The 25 priority countries were chosen based on the magnitude and severity of maternal and child deaths, country commitment, USAID Mission capacity, and potential opportunity to integrate programs and leverage investments.

● Afghanistan

● Bangladesh

● Burma

● Democratic Republic of Congo

● Ethiopia

● Ghana

● Haiti

● India

● Indonesia

● Kenya

● Liberia

● Madagascar

● Malawi

● Mali

● Mozambique

● Nepal

● Nigeria

● Pakistan

● Rwanda

● Senegal

● South Sudan

● Tanzania

● Uganda

● Yemen

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Priority Countries

USAID prioritizes extending water and sanitation services to the world’s most vulnerable communities. Every year the Agency undertakes a thorough assessment to determine which countries would benefit most from its investments. On November 6, 2020, USAID announced that all 18 FY 2020–designated high-priority countries (HPC) would remain on the list for the coming fiscal year.

● Afghanistan

● Democratic Republic of Congo

● Ethiopia

● Ghana https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/nov-6-2020-usaid-re-designates-18-high-priority-countries-under-water-world-act

● Haiti

● India

● Indonesia

● Kenya

● Liberia

● Madagascar

● Mali

● Mozambique

● Nepal

● Nigeria

● Senegal

● South Sudan

● Tanzania

● Uganda

President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) Focus Countries

The U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) is a U.S. Government initiative designed to drastically reduce malaria deaths and illnesses in target countries in sub-Saharan Africa with a long-term vision of a world without malaria. PMI is at work in 24 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in one region in Asia. To reduce malaria deaths and illness in each target country, PMI helps national governments deliver proven, effective interventions to those at risk for malaria.

● Angola

● Burma

● Cambodia

● Cameroon

● China (Yunnan Province)

● Côte d’Ivoire

● Democratic Republic of Congo

● Ethiopia

● Ghana

● Guinea

● Kenya

● Lao People’s Democratic Republic

● Liberia

● Madagascar

● Malawi

● Mali

● Mozambique

● Niger

● Nigeria

● Rwanda

● Senegal

● Sierra Leone http://www.pmi.gov/

● Tanzania

● Thailand

● Uganda

● Vietnam

● Zimbabwe

The US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Focus Countries

PEPFAR activities focus on expanding access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions. These include provision of antiretroviral treatment, pre-exposure prophylaxis, voluntary male circumcision, and condoms. PEPFAR bilateral programs span more than 50 countries, and requires 25 countries and the Asia, Western Hemisphere, and West Africa regional programs to develop “Country Operational Plans” (COPs) and “Regional Operational Plans” (ROPs). PEPFAR also has identified 13 focus countries. These countries are:

● Botswana

● Côte d’Ivoire

● Haiti

● Kenya

● Lesotho

● Malawi

● Namibia

● Rwanda

● Swaziland

● Tanzania

● Uganda

● Zimbabwe

APPENDIX C: Socio-Ecological Model for Social Behavior Change