Full_Solicitation_SOL-114-14-000008.pdf

[This page is a placeholder for SF 33]

SOL-114-14-000008

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES/PRICES

B.1 PURPOSE

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE, AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

B.4 PRICE SCHEDULE

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

B.6 CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS

B.7 COST REIMBURSABLE

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

D.2 BRANDING STRATEGY

D.3 BRANDING AND MARKING POLICY

D.4 AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

E.2 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

F.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

F.4 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

F.5 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS

F.6 KEY PERSONNEL

F.7 AIDAR 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007)

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.1 AIDAR 752.7003 DOCUMENTATION FOR PAYMENT (NOV 1998)

G.2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICE

G.3 CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

G.4 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIP WITH USAID

G.5 PAYING OFFICE

G.6 ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

H.2 AIDAR 752.7004 EMERGENCY LOCATOR INFORMATION (JUL 1997)

H.3 AIDAR 752.245-70 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY - USAID REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

H.4 AIDAR 752.245-71 TITLE TO AND CARE OF PROPERTY (APR 1984)

H.5 AIDAR 752.209-71 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCOVERED AFTER

AWARD (JUN 1993)

H.6 AIDAR 752.7032 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS (JAN 1990)

H.7 AIDAR 752.225-70 SOURCE AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012)

H.8 INSURANCE AND SERVICES

H.9 AIDAR 752.228-70 MEDICAL EVACUATION (MEDEVAC) SERVICES (JULY 2007)

H.10 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

H.11 NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY PURCHASES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

RESOURCES

H.12 LOGISTIC SUPPORT

H.13 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

H.14 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN AND THE SF 294 – SUBCONTRACTING REPORT FOR

INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND SF 295 – SUMMARY CONTRACTING REPORT

H.15 EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM FINANCING (FEB 2002)

H.16 ADS 302.3.5.5 REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES (JUL 2007)

H.17 USAID DISABILITY POLICY - ACQUISITION (DECEMBER 2004)

H.18 NONDISCRIMINATION (JUNE 2012)

H.19 NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY PURCHASES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

RESOURCES

H.20 GRANTS UNDER USAID CONTRACT

H.21 CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT

H.22 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

H.23 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

H.24 AIDAR 752.231-71 SALARY SUPPLEMENTS FOR HG EMPLOYEES (OCT 1998)

H.25 AIDAR 752.7034 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLAIMER. (DEC 1991)

H.26 AIDAR 752.7013 CONTRACTOR-MISSION RELATIONSHIPS (OCT 1989)

H.27 AIDAR 752.7014 NOTICE OF CHANGES IN TRAVEL REGULATIONS. (JAN 1990)

H.28 AIDAR 752.7027 PERSONNEL (DEC 1990)

H.29 AIDAR 752.7028 DIFFERENTIAL AND ALLOWANCES. (JUL 1996)

H.30 AIDAR 752.7029 POST PRIVILEGES. (JUL 1993)

H.31 AIDAR 752.7033 PHYSICAL FITNESS. (JUL 1997)

H.32 ACCESS TO USAID FACILITIES AND USAID’S INFORMATION SYSTEMS (AUGUST 2013) 68

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

I.2 FAR 52.204-1 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT (DEC 1989)

1.3 FAR 52.232-99, PROVIDING ACCELERATED PAYMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTORS (DEVIATION) (AUG 2012)

I.4 FAR 52.216-24 LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT LIABILITY. (APR 1984)

I.5 FAR 52.216-25 CONTRACT DEFINITIZATION. (OCT 2010)

I.6 AIDAR 752.202-1 USAID DEFINITIONS CLAUSE - GENERAL SUPPLEMENT FOR USE IN ALL

USAID CONTRACTS (JAN 1990)

I.7 AIDAR 752.211-70 LANGUAGE AND MEASUREMENT (JUN 1992)

I.8 AIDAR 752.7001 BIOGRAPHICAL DATA (JUL 1997)

I.9 AIDAR 752.7006 NOTICES (APR 1984)

I.10 AIDAR 752.7008 USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES OR PERSONNEL (APR 1984)

I.11 AIDAR 752.7025 APPROVALS (APR 1984)

I.12 AIDAR 752.7031 LEAVE AND HOLIDAYS (OCT 1989)

I.13 AIDAR 752.228-3 WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE (DEFENSE BASE ACT)

I.14 AIDAR 752.228-7 INSURANCE - LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS

I.15 AIDAR 752.229-70 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

I.16 AIDAR 752.7002 TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION. (JAN 1990)

I.17 AIDAR 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE

DOCUMENTS (SEP 2013)

I.18 AIDAR 752.7008 USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES OR PERSONNEL (APR 1984)

I.19 AIDAR 752.7010 CONVERSION OF U.S. DOLLARS TO LOCAL CURRENCY (APR 1984)

I.20 AIDAR 752.7011 ORIENTATION AND LANGUAGE TRAINING (APR 1984)

I.21 AIDAR 752.7013 CONTRACTOR-MISSION RELATIONSHIPS. (OCT 1989)

I.22 AIDAR 752.7015 USE OF POUCH FACILITIES. (JUL 1997)

I.23 AIDAR 752.7018 HEALTH AND ACCIDENT COVERAGE FOR USAID PARTICIPANT

TRAINEES. (JAN 1999)

I.24 AIDAR 752.7019 PARTICIPANT TRAINING. (JAN 1999)

I.25 AIDAR 752.7023 REQUIRED VISA FORM FOR USAID PARTICIPANTS. (APR 1984)

I.26 AIDAR 752.7028 DIFFERENTIAL AND ALLOWANCES. (JUL 1996)

I.27 AIDAR 752.7029 POST PRIVILEGES. (JUL 1993)

I.28 AIDAR 752.7033 PHYSICAL FITNESS. (JUL 1997)

I.29 AIDAR 752.7034 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLAIMER. (DEC 1991)

I.30 AIDAR 752.7035 PUBLIC NOTICES. (DEC 1991)

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS

K.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

K.2 FAR 52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (JUL 2013)

K.3 FAR 52.204-3 TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION (OCT 1998)

(A) DEFINITIONS

K.4 FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (FEB 2009)

K.5 FAR 52.209-5 CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (APR 2010)

K.6 FAR 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (APR 2010)

K.7 FAR 52.209-8 UPDATES OF INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS

(APR 2010)

K.8 FAR 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION (OCT

2008) 102

K.9 FAR 52.230-7 PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE--COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CHANGES (APR

2005)

K.10 INSURANCE - IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY

K.11 SIGNATURE

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

L.2 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998) 106

L.3 FAR 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

L.4 FAR 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

L.5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL

L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF BRANDING AND MARKING PLANS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.3 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.4 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE AND CONTRACT AWARD

ATTACHMENTS

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES/PRICES

B.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Contract, titled the Good Governance Initiative (GGI) in Georgia, is to strengthen the overall transparency, accountability and effectiveness of governance in Georgia, including the legislative and executive branches at various levels. This is to be achieved by building linkages between different branches and levels of government in key governance systems and processes, including for enhanced public participation in and public information about those governance systems and processes for all Georgians—regardless of ethnicity, religion, or status—to ensure greater government accountability.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion contract. For the consideration set forth below, the Contractor shall provide the results, deliverables or outputs described in Section C and F in accordance with the performance standards specified in Section F.4.

B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE, AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

(a) The estimated cost for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fixed fee, if any, is TBD. The fixed fee, if any, is TBD. The estimated cost plus fixed fee, if any, is in the range of $10,000,000- $11,300,000.

(b) Within the estimated cost plus fixed fee (if any) specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by the Contractor (and payment of fee, if any) for performance hereunder is TBD. The Contractor shall not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount.

(c) Funds obligated hereunder are anticipated to be sufficient through TBD.

B.4 PRICE SCHEDULE

a. Direct Cost

b. Grants

c. Indirect Cost

d. Fixed Fee

e. Total Cost + Fixed Fee

$500,000

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases:

Description Rate Base Type Period

1/ 1/ 1/

1/Base of Application:

Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

B.6 CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS

(1) Reimbursement for indirect costs shall be at the lower of the negotiated final predetermined rates or the following ceiling rates:

Description Rate Base Type Period

1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/Base of Application:

Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

(2) The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount should the final indirect cost rates exceed the negotiated ceiling rates. If the final indirect cost rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates.

(3) This understanding shall not change any monetary ceiling, obligation, or specific cost allowance or disallowance. Any changes in classifying or allocating indirect costs require the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

B.7 COST REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable shall be limited to reasonable, allocable and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, FAR 52.216-8, Fixed Fee, if applicable, and AIDAR 752.7003, Documentation for Payment.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

TITLE: GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE

C.1 LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACN Anti-Corruption Network CAC Civic Advisory Council CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEGSTAR Center for Effective Governance Systems and Territorial Arrangement Reform CHU Central Harmonization Unit CSB Civil Service Bureau CSO Civil Society Organization CSRC Civil Service Reform Concept DO Development Objective FOI Freedom of Information G3 Good Governance in Georgia GGI Good Governance Initiative GOG Government of Georgia INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions IRM Independent Reporting Mechanism LSG Local Self-Governance MOF Ministry of Finance MOH Ministry of Labor, Health, and Social Affairs MOJ Ministry of Justice MRDI Ministry of Rural Development and Infrastructure NDS National Development Strategy OECD The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OGP Open Government Partnership PAR Public Administration Reform PEFA Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment PFM Public Financial Management PFMS Public Financial Management Strategy PMO Prime Minister’s Office PMP Performance Management Plan PPRTC Public Policy Research and Training Center SAO State Audit Office STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance SUDP Strategic Urban Development Plans TAG Transparent and Accountable Governance

C.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

There are no easy solutions to the complex historical, political, economic, and social challenges that have confronted Georgia’s transition to democracy and good governance. However, with the election of a new government in 2012, the Constitutional shift of power from the Presidency to the Office of the Prime Minister, and the advance of various good governance reforms and initiatives, it is an opportune time to renew governance-related support to the Government of Georgia (GOG), including Parliament, to improve the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of key institutions.

The GOG has announced a series of ambitious governmental reforms intended to increase government transparency, accountability and effectiveness of government, as well as to increase government engagement with citizens. These commitments are illustrated in various documents and including Georgia’s Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plans and the draft 2020 National Development Strategy1.

Among the political commitments of the new government are improving whole-of-government public administration systems, including civil service reform, enhancing local-level democracy, ensuring freedom of expression, providing universal healthcare, advancing Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic trajectory, and further integrating women and minorities into civic and political life.

The purpose of this Contract—titled the Good Governance Initiative—is to strengthen the overall transparency, accountability and effectiveness of governance in Georgia, including the legislative and executive branches at various levels. This is to be achieved by building linkages between different branches and levels of government in key governance systems and processes, including for enhanced public participation in and public information about those governance systems and processes for all Georgians—regardless of ethnicity, religion or status—to ensure greater government accountability.

The Good Governance Initiative (GGI) will focus assistance on strengthening key governance reforms designed to establish or strengthen critical systems, processes and practices that ensure greater government transparency, accountability and effective operation and service delivery. Examples of these include strategic planning and performance management processes; participatory policy and legislative development processes; performance-based budget planning, implementation and oversight; and intra-governmental and public communications and coordination systems. Assistance will support Georgia’s participation in, or progress towards, governance-related reform initiatives and international commitments such as the Open Government Partnership.

In seeking to strengthen overall governance systems and processes in Georgia, GGI (hereinafter referred to as the Contract) will align assistance to the executive and legislative branches while including significant public outreach and engagement components. This will be done through technical assistance, capacity building, and training for certain governing institutions at the national and local levels.

To the extent possible, the Contract will implement activities such as technical assistance, training, and workshops in the context of specific policy and legislative issues. Specific policy issues identified by USAID in consultation with the GOG, implementing partners under USAID’s Transparent and Accountable Governance (TAG) Project, and other stakeholders (please see the Strategic Framework section for a description of the TAG Project and the Contractor’s relationship with it) will guide the Contract’s work. These include, but are not limited to, local self-governance reform, public administration reform (including civil service reform), healthcare reform, media reform, European and Euro-Atlantic integration, OGP, implementation of gender-related laws and action plans, and initiatives for greater minority integration into civic and political life.

Support under the Contract will likely target select GOG institutions such as the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO); key ministries such as the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs (MOH), and the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure (MRDI); Parliamentary offices and committees; government agencies such as the State Audit Office; and local governments.

1 http://www.mof.ge/News/5902

Lessons learned from past USAID activities in the area of governance, as well as changes in government since October 2012, have provided grounds for rethinking past approaches to governance activities. The Contract will focus on sustainable approaches such as policy level work and will emphasize proactive, strategic development support aimed at building governance systems and processes.

USAID funding will be allocated over a five-year period. This Contract is structured according to Results and Outcomes, along with illustrative interventions. Illustrations interventions are provided to guide thinking and should not pre-determine applicants’ proposed approach. Given budget limitations, applicants must apply a considerable amount of selectivity and strategic focus when proposing interventions to determine what will be the most impactful and value-added approaches.

Assistance will be accomplished according to the following Purpose, Results, and Outcomes:

Contract Purpose: Strengthen the overall transparency, accountability and effectiveness of governance in Georgia

Result One: Improved Administrative and Financial Management of Public Institutions at All Levels

Outcome 1.1: Internal systems and processes for long-term strategic planning and performance management improved

Outcome 1.2: Strengthened local and national-level public financial management systems, including performance-based budgeting

Outcome 1.3: Functional civil service and human resource management systems introduced

Result Two: Increased Openness of Government

Outcome 2.1: Functional government mechanisms for ensuring transparency and access to public information strengthened

Outcome 2.2: Improved national and local government mechanisms and processes for citizen consultation

Result Three: Strengthened Policy Development and Lawmaking Processes

Outcome 3.1: Internal and inter-agency systems for evidence-based policy development and lawmaking will be established, including mechanisms for civic participation

Outcome 3.2: Development of select policies and laws supported

Result Four: Strengthened Institutional Oversight of Government

Outcome 4.1: Strengthened capacity of key parliamentary committees to provide oversight of line ministries’ and state agencies’ performance and spending, including related to the decentralization and public health sectors

Outcome 4.2: Strengthened government internal control mechanisms and systems

Outcome 4.3: Improved systems, tools and capacity of the central government to monitor the performance of local governments based on objective and measurable criteria

The Contract’s programmatic budget must be structured according to the following distribution. For future annual budgets, USAID may request adjustments to this distribution.

Result 1 – 40% Result 2 – 10% Result 3 – 30% Result 4 – 20%

C.3 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The Good Governance Initiative (GGI) is one component of USAID/Georgia’s Transparent and Accountable Governance (TAG) project. The overall goal of TAG is more transparent and accountable governance in Georgia. TAG takes a holistic, systems-oriented approach to good governance.

Strong and effective democracies need well-functioning legal frameworks, institutions, systems and processes to ensure government accountability, transparency, and checks and balances. Citizen participation and the free flow of information also play a fundamental role in ensuring government accountability and transparency, as well as in furthering government legitimacy and effectiveness. Despite advances over the past decade, Georgia’s governance systems and processes require continued support, including those related to transparency, accountability, civic participation, and access to information. TAG aims to make these principles of good governance a regular part of Georgia’s political culture.

To take advantage of opportunities to advance good governance, TAG will engage government institutions on a local and national basis. At the same time, it will support the demand side of governance through civil society and media, with the goal of ultimately building equally strong pillars of good governance to better serve the public interest. TAG will be comprised of separate but mutually reinforcing implementing mechanisms. In addition to GGI, TAG encompasses complementary awards for strengthening civil society and the media, as well as advancing civic education.

In order to improve overall transparency, accountability and effectiveness of governance in Georgia, TAG will strengthen the linkages between different branches and levels of government related to key governing systems and processes, while also increasing public participation in and public information about those systems and processes to ensure greater governance accountability.

TAG is predicated on the development hypothesis that transparent and accountable governance can be enhanced at the national and local levels by expanding civic participation, improving access to reliable information, and increasing the effectiveness of governing institutions, systems and processes. This will be done through achievement of the following high level results or sub-purposes, each of which mutually reinforces the others:

1) Increased Civic Engagement, Including Outside of Tbilisi

2) Improved Access to Independent, Reliable and Balanced Information Relevant to Georgia’s Good Governance

3) Strengthened Institutional Oversight of Government Institutions

4) Strengthened Policy Development and Law-making Processes

5) Improved Administrative and Financial Management of Public Institutions at All Levels

GGI (hereinafter referred to as the Contract) will directly contribute to all of the above-mentioned sub-purposes of TAG. Specifically, the program will necessarily contribute to the overall success of TAG by supporting the supply-side of transparent, accountable, and effective governance.

USAID is positioned to support democracy and governance reform and strengthening in Georgia through USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy’s2 Development Objective # 1: Democratic checks and balances and accountable governance enhanced. TAG will contribute to Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1 (A more informed and engaged citizenry), IR 1.4 (Transparent, responsive and effective governance and service delivery) and sub-IR 1.2.3 (Capacity, openness and independence of the legislature increased).

TAG will also respond to the USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy3 of March 2012.

The GGI implementer will be required to coordinate closely with USAID and other implementers that fall under TAG. This will entail regular meetings, routine information sharing, peer reviews, and other forms of coordination to ensure that all TAG activities are complementary, anchored by similar policy priority areas, and working towards the same overall purpose of transparent and accountable governance.

Where possible, the implementing mechanisms will address the same Government of Georgia reforms, policy priorities, and key issues of concern for Georgian civil society. Currently, the TAG policy priorities identified by USAID in consultation with the GOG are as follows. However, this list is likely to evolve throughout implementation of the Contract through continued consultation with the GOG, as well as among implementing partners under TAG.

• Open Government Partnership

• Local Self-Governance reforms

• Public Administration reforms (including Civil Service Reform)

• Health systems strengthening

• Euro-Atlantic Integration (in coordination with related European Union programs)

• Media reforms, including implementation of recently enacted media legislation and transparency of the analogue to digital transition

• Implementation of gender equality and women’s empowerment laws, policies and action plans

• Government initiatives for greater minority integration into civic and political life

See Annex A for the TAG Project Summary.

C.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Government responsiveness to needs at the local level is limited.

Most people encounter their government at the local level, which is responsible for a limited set of services, including pre-school education, public transportation, waste management and road maintenance. Currently, local government institutions in Georgia lack the fiscal resources to respond to constituents’ needs and resolve their problems. However, new local self-governance legislation intends to provide municipalities with budgets better suited to meet their service delivery mandates. Under the new framework for local self-governance, local governments will require support to ensure effective management of new levels of financial resources in a way that improves government responsiveness to citizen needs.

2 http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/GeorgiaCDCS.pdf 3 http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/GenderEqualityPolicy.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/GeorgiaCDCS.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/GeorgiaCDCS.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/GenderEqualityPolicy.pdf http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/GenderEqualityPolicy.pdf

In ethnic minority communities, the distance between the central government and local governments is exacerbated by the lack of communications from the central government to local authorities in languages they can understand. Women also face unique challenges to accessing services and interacting with local level government. Religious minorities, disabled people, and the LGBT community are not fully integrated into political and civic life.

State oversight of government institutions is limited.

While civil society and the Georgian media’s oversight of government is gradually improving, the government itself requires assistance to continue to strengthen its oversight and internal control mechanisms. The regulatory framework on oversight issues, including conflict of interest and ethics codes, is incomplete. Further, Parliament has not fully embraced its institutional role to oversee the executive due to capacity challenges. The State Audit Office, although independent by law, has not yet achieved the reputation of equivalent institutions in other countries, like the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The ability of the national government to oversee local governments, in terms of their compliance with public financial management (PFM) procedures and the achievement of minimum service delivery standards, is limited. While the new local self-governance legislation attempts to address this, the government will need support to improve local government performance based on those standards.

Policy-making and legislative development processes are limited.

Georgian policy-making and legislative development processes are underdeveloped and often proceed without comprehensive policy analysis and stakeholder consultation. Policy planning and law-making procedures are not well defined or are applied inconsistently throughout the government. There are no formal guidelines for policy development or legal drafting that would ensure a standardized approach across ministries as well as with Parliament. The legal drafting capacity within government and Parliament needs improvement, as does the analytical capacity to assess other policy options and budgetary implications of proposed legislation. Often times, drafted or enacted normative acts are vague, contradictory, conflict with other laws, or do not provide feasible solutions. Budgets are formulated outside of evidence-based research, leading to public expenditure decisions made without adequate consideration. Parliament has difficulty attracting and retaining well-trained, qualified staff to manage law-making processes. One major challenge to the lawmaking process is limited public access to draft laws and engagement of relevant stakeholders. Due to Parliament’s heavy workload, public posting of draft laws throughout the parliamentary review process is sometimes neglected. While initial draft laws are posted, there is no electronic system to track changes leading up to the final version. In July 2013, a Needs Assessment of the Parliament of Georgia, funded by the EU and conducted by the Policy and Management Consulting Group, identified weaknesses in legislative documentation and recordkeeping systems, the lack of software to track changes in draft laws, and the lack of a searchable legislative database as major lawmaking gaps.

Capacity of public institutions at the national and local levels is limited.

A number of factors contribute to uneven implementation and enforcement of policies, laws and regulations (normative acts) in Georgia, including a lack of public administration systems and processes. In a number of ministries, state agencies, or sub-national governing bodies responsible for the implementation of normative acts, an absence of strategic planning often results in inadequate resources (staff, budget, training, time) being allocated for implementation. Further, key government institutions critical to implementing key policies and legislation have limited capacity. This stems, in part, from inadequate systems and capacity for strategic planning, including designing, managing and monitoring programs and activities critical to the successful implementation of laws. Low capacity of government entities is also linked to a lack of institutional memory caused by high staff turnover. Much of this turnover results from insecurity of public servants in the absence of modern civil service legislation. Until recently, a large number of public servants worked under short-term contracts without minimal guarantees of job security, which challenged the overall integrity of the civil service.

Civil service reform, which is currently underway, is only one aspect of a broader set of challenges that require overall public administration reform to address roles and responsibilities of each entity within the public administration system, including issues of subordination. On the supply side of the governance equation, not enough emphasis has been placed on ensuring participatory and transparent decision-making processes and institutionalizing government accountability mechanisms.

C.5 CONTRACT COMPONENTS

The Contract will encompass four main components or result areas:

RESULT 1: Improved Administrative and Financial Management of Public Institutions at All Levels (referred to hereafter as “Public Administration”)

RESULT 2: Increased Openness of Government (referred to hereafter as “Open Government”)

RESULT 3: Strengthened Policy Development and Lawmaking Processes (referred to hereafter as “Policy and Lawmaking”)

RESULT 4: Strengthened Institutional Oversight of Government (referred to hereafter as “State Oversight”)

C.5.1 RESULT 1 – PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Background

Public Administration Reform

The definition of public administration most suitable for this Contract describes it as " concerned with the organization of government policies and programs as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct.”4 In other words, public administration can be described as a set of systems, rules, and processes that regulate governance programs and services, including those that regulate civil service.

This Contract will carry on and expand key elements of USAID’s current Good Governance in Georgia5 (G3) activity which focuses on improving institutional effectiveness, transparency and accountability at all levels of government through capacity development interventions as well as focusing on policy development and implementation of key public administration reforms, including civil service reform.

The October 2012 change in government, as well as constitutional changes shifting authorities from the President to the Prime Minister that entered into force in 2013, have led to a conducive environment for public

4 UN Economic and Social Council, Committee of Experts on Public Administration, Definition of Basic Concepts and Terminologies in Governance and Public Administration (2006) 5 http://goodgovernance.ge/ administration reform (PAR). PAR topics are on the policy agenda of the new government, including civil service reform. This has led to strong momentum for advancing specific public administration reforms. For example, a number of recent strategic GOG documents, including the draft 2020 National Development Strategy (NDS) and the forthcoming 2014-2017 Public Finance Management Strategy (PFMS), emphasize the need to improve further policy coordination and management. (In the context of this Contract, policy management refers to policy planning, policy implementation, policy monitoring and evaluation and policy coordination.)

In another example, there is currently a push to define the functions and structure of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), also known as the State Chancellery. Restructuring the PMO will enable it to fulfill its functions, with a core emphasis on policy planning and policy coordination. In early 2014, Georgia’s Prime Minister made an announcement about restructuring of the PMO, which was informed by a review (April – December 2013) by SIGMA, a joint initiative of the EU and OECD. The purpose of the assessment was to analyze the functions and capacities of the PMO in the context of the new Constitution and identify the key functions the PMO should assume based on best international practice. The assessment has not yet been made public.

At the GOG’s request, USAID has also been exploring the introduction of a Managing for Results Framework (MFR)6. A USAID feasibility assessment on this topic suggests that many elements of a MFR system are already in place, as evidenced by whole-of-government strategies like the 2020 NDS and a mid-term socio-economic action plan for 2012-2015 known as Basic Data and Directions (BDD). The MFR feasibility assessment provides eleven recommendations for making MFR improvements such as promoting government-wide use of the most effective management tools. The MFR should be viewed as a sub-set of a wider PAR agenda implemented in a coordinated manner by key stakeholders such as the PMO, MOF, and Parliament.7 (See Annex B for the full MFR Report).

Public Financial Management (PFM)

In 2006, the GOG’s Public Sector Financial Management Reform was developed to improve the transparency and effectiveness of public expenditure management. Targeted reforms included the introduction of a single Treasury account, strengthening the role of the Parliamentary Committee on Finance and Budget, introducing an integrated Public Financial Management System, and the reforming the Chamber of Control of Georgia (now the State Audit Office) to become an independent Supreme Audit Institution and deliver audit services to the Georgian public sector in accordance with international best practices. The GOG also declared a shift to program-based budgeting practices which have improved the transparency of the budgeting process.

Positive trends are evident in the development of PFM systems, which are evolving and progressing in terms of quality and sufficiency. For example, at the national level the MOF is moving towards program-based budgeting practices as well as performance-based auditing, essential components of a PFM system designed not just to increase government efficiency, control financial corruption and mismanagement, and account for revenues and expenditures, but also to contribute to the development and implementation of economic, budgetary and financial policies.

6 Managing for Results Framework (MRF) is defined as “a system of policy analysis and planning, budgeting, performance management and accountability that aims to improve capability of a government in delivering on reform ambitions and policy pledges,” Ugis Sics, Report on Assessment of Feasibility of Introduction of Managing for Results Framework, October 2013, USAID Good Governance in Georgia (G3) project http://www.goodgovernance.ge/portal/alias__G3/lang__en/tabid__4690/default.aspx 7 Ibid.

http://www.goodgovernance.ge/portal/alias__G3/lang__en/tabid__4690/default.aspx

According to a Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment (PEFA) conducted by the World Bank in 2012, “There are significant improvements in policy orientation of the budget and planning process in Georgia, with further improvements under implementation.”8 The MOF’s forthcoming 2014-2017 PFMS is expected to be largely based on the PEFA and therefore focused on development and improvement of strategic planning, program-based budgeting methodology, policy analysis, and coordination among other aspects of

PFM.

Civil Service

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been assessing anti-corruption reforms in Georgia since 2004 using the Anti-Corruption Monitoring mechanism. According to OECD, an ongoing challenge has been the “integrity of public service and promoting transparency and reducing discretion in public administration.”9 A 2013 report issued by the OECD’s Anti-Corruption Network (ACN) analyzes Georgia’s progress in implementing recommendations from the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan of 2010.

According to the ACN, “In the area of civil service, a number of legislative amendments were introduced during the last three years; albeit important and positive, they did not represent a systemic reform based on a clear vision of the future of the civil service in Georgia. Therefore, the conceptual direction of the civil service reform is yet to be determined in an inclusive manner and implemented by the government – this process has been started in 2013.”10

The Georgian Dream-led government has expressed its commitment to a standard, career-based civil service in its Government Strategy for A Strong, Democratic, United Georgia.11 The importance of a stable and professional civil service and the intent to support its development has been also expressed in the draft 2020 NDS. Moreover, the GOG has demonstrated the political will to develop a professional civil service by issuing a decree in July 2013 that established a Civil Service Reform Concept (CSRC) Development Coordination Council comprised of 15 representatives of various ministries of Georgia and the Parliament. The Council was assigned the task of developing a Civil Service Reform Concept to be submitted to the government in early 2014. The draft concept was developed through a participatory process with involvement of relevant government and non-government stakeholders, including academia. The draft CSRC development process benefited from international experts provided by USAID’s G3 activity and the Support for Improvement in Governance and Management (SIGMA) program, a joint initiative of the EU and OECD.

The current draft CSRC addresses the scope and guiding principles of civil service reform—rule of law, transparency, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency—in line with civil service legislation and practices in EU and OECD member states. The Concept envisages the elaboration of a new, comprehensive Law on Civil Service as well as introduces best practices in organizational structuring, administration and management.

Areas to be addressed in the law include an expanded role for the Civil Service Bureau (CSB), a new human resource management cycle, a framework for ensuring benefits and duties of public servants, professional development opportunities and training, and equal opportunities for all genders. Related secondary legislation and procedural regulations are expected to follow.

Civil service reform will need to address issues of funding, planning, coordination, decision-making, 8 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment 2012, World Bank, September 2013.

9 Anti-Corruption Network, Istanbul Anti-corruption Action Plan country reports available at http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/istanbulactionplancountryreports.htm 10 Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan Third Round Monitoring Report, September 2013 available at http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/GEORGIAThirdRoundMonitoringReportENG.pdf 11 http://government.gov.ge/files/41_35183_108931_4.pdf http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/istanbulactionplancountryreports.htm http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/GEORGIAThirdRoundMonitoringReportENG.pdf monitoring, and quality assurance as they relate to public servant capacity building.

The current Civil Service Law assigns the CSB with the function of “coordination and methodological support of the human resource management processes as well as of the professional training, retraining and capacity enhancement of the civil servants.”12 Current GOG discussions on the role of the CSB under a new civil service framework suggest the agency will continue to play an important role in public servant capacity building.

Local Self-Governance

Regarding local governance in Georgia, on February 5, 2014, the GOG passed the Local Self-Governance (LSG) Code with a vote of 77 to 7. The much-debated bill is designed to decentralize government by increasing the number of local government units, modestly expand municipal functions, and advance local democracy through direct elections of mayors and gamgebelis (collectively referred to as mayors hereafter). The theory of change underlying the legislation is that the creation of smaller units of government with well-defined competencies, well-defined state budget allocations, and directly elected executives will lead to more participatory democracy.

The law has initially led to the creation of 7 new self-governing cities, bringing the total number of self-governing cities in Georgia to 12 (including Tbilisi). In April 2014, Parliament approved a “1+1” proposal to separate these new urban centers from the surrounding territory, in essence creating an urban municipality and a rural municipality. As a result, prior to local elections in 2014, there will be 76 local government units (64 municipalities and 12 self-governing cities). (Hereafter, self-governing cities and municipalities will be referred to collectively as municipalities). Following local elections in 2014, any further territorial reform will need to be proposed by a special government commission and approved by Parliament

Of key importance to the new law is the direct election of mayors in all municipalities. Such an arrangement should strengthen accountability of the local executive and create a stronger bond between mayors and the people they serve. Elected council members will still make up the local level legislature. Council members have the exclusive authority to issue statutory acts which mayors are required to implement. Councils (also known as sakrebulos) have the legal authority to terminate mayors through a defined no-confidence procedure although mayors can contest such decisions in court. Similarly, Article 51 allows the citizenry to activate a vote of no-confidence procedure with signatures from 20% of registered voters.

Municipal competencies in Georgia are relatively circumscribed compared to Georgia’s European neighbors.

Functions include budget development, management of property under municipal ownership, zoning and planning, street cleaning, maintenance of local roads, local transport, parks and greenery, pre-school, and emergency services. The new law upholds existing competencies as well as adds some new ones, most notably water supply. Given the technical and infrastructure demands of water supply, this competency will be phased in gradually over time, guided by decisions of a special commission or some other inter-governmental decision-making mechanism. Similarly, the planned transfer of land from state to municipality ownership should occur in a phased manner.

The recently passed LSG code offers a new window of opportunity for USAID and the international community to support Georgia in its transition from legislative reform to implementation. While decisions on some key elements of the reform are deferred to other legislation or special committees, the transition to implementation planning has already begun. In order for new and existing local governments to function effectively and meet citizens’ expectations, technical assistance will be required in a number of areas, most notably capacity

12 The Law Civil Service, Article 130, Section 2.b.

building, public financial management systems, mechanisms for citizen consultation, and central oversight.

In this context, the Contract will focus assistance for local government performance in a few targeted areas, carefully taking into account the plans of other donors working in this space. In this way, a clear division of labor will be established and USAID assistance will be positioned to have the greatest possible impact.

RESULT 1 Outcomes:

Under this Contract, USAID intends to focus on key public administration reforms including but not limited to Civil Service Reform, PFM (including program budgeting), and Managing for Results (including policy coordination, strategic planning and performance management). These complex public administration reforms will require close collaboration with relevant government stakeholders and other donors.

At the end of the period of performance of this Contract, we can expect to see the following outcomes:

Outcome 1.1 - Internal systems and processes for long-term strategic planning and performance management improved

An important component of the Contract is to improve internal and cross-governmental systems and processes for long-term strategic planning and performance management. Likely counterparts will include the PMO, MOF, MOH, MRDI, and possibly other government ministries and bodies. The PMO and MOF have emphasized the need for strengthening policy planning and coordination capacity of individual agencies as well as the government as a whole. Some ministries, including the MOF, are embracing new approaches to improving public sector performance through strategic planning, change management, and results-based performance monitoring. The PMO has launched a restructuring process so it can better fulfil its new functions of policy planning and coordination. This Contract will expand upon the work currently performed by USAID’s G3 activity that focuses on strengthening strategic planning and institutional development of key government ministries and entities, including the PMO and MOF.

In light of new and existing GOG healthcare policy initiatives, including the continued rollout of universal health coverage, the Contract will provide assistance to the MOH to develop appropriate management and oversight systems. The Contract will support the MOH to operationalize systems for the effective strategic management of current and future reforms. This may entail supporting the development of an external healthcare quality monitoring system to guide continuous performance improvements of services provided using public funds and a national health care accreditation system that helps ensure public funds are being directed to duly accredited institutions.

The Contract will also assist government institutions to increase their responsiveness to historically disadvantaged citizens, especially women, youth, minorities, and other vulnerable populations through strategic planning. Assistance may include education and training for public officials on methods for inclusion of disadvantaged groups in government programs.

At the local level, past USAID efforts successfully facilitated the development of Strategic Urban Development Plans (SUDPs) in three municipalities: Batumi, Poti, and Rustavi. While the SUDPs do not have any legal force, Councils in all three municipalities endorsed the plans. The plans have also been endorsed by the Ministry of Economy and Sustainability.

Urban planning best practices show that SUDPs must be developed using a highly consultative process. They serve as an overarching, strategic vision for a city in narrative form. They tell the “story” of how a municipality plans to meet the urban service delivery needs of a growing populace, invest in infrastructure, make the city more livable, support the business community, and draw on its comparative advantages. They serve as the basis for detailed land-use plans, allowing citizens to play a role in shaping the characteristics of a city at the beginning of the urban planning cycle. If facilitated carefully, SUDPs serve as a constructive citizen consultation mechanism. The Contractor may identify a small number of new municipalities, formed as a result of the new LSG law, in which to facilitate the SUDP process through local government officials, CSOs, and concerned citizens.

Illustrative Deliverables:

Establishment of functional and coordinated systems for strategic planning and performance management at the PMO and MOF Assist the GOG to facilitate a whole-of-government public administration reform process, or some of its elements. (Policy development, coordination, and strategic management should be prioritized).

Equip the MOH with strategic management tools to monitor and assure quality of implemented reforms.

Development SUDPs in new municipalities using best practices for citizen involvement

Outcome 1.2 – Strengthened local and national-level public financial management systems, including performance-based budgeting

A key component of this Contract is to strengthen public financial management systems with a specific emphasis on budget development. The concept of program-based budgeting was adopted in Georgia’s 2009 Budget Code. Since then, the GOG has made significant advances such as rolling out a program-based budgeting structure for the government’s central budget in 2012, and for local government budgets in 2013.

Some important elements of a program-based budgeting system are now in place, including an adequate legislative framework, a standardized budget calendar, forecasting tools such as Medium Term Action Plans for individual ministries, and budgetary frameworks like BDD to set expenditure priorities. However, the GOG’s budget development process requires further improvement.

Within the context of budget development, this Contract will focus on areas for improvement identified in two strategic documents13, as well as the forthcoming 2014-2017 PFMS.