RFP_SOL-615-13-000012_-_May_16 _2013.doc

Solicitation# SOL‐615‐13‐000012

RFP Issuance Date:

May 16, 2013 Pre-Proposal Registration

May 24, 2013 Questions due date and time:

May 28, 2013, 08:00 AM, Local Time (Nairobi, Kenya) Pre-Proposal Conference:

May 30, 2013 RFP Amendment Issuance Date:

June 8, 2013

RFP Closing date and time:

July 3, 2013, 05:00 PM, Local Time (Nairobi, Kenya) SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL‐615‐13‐000012 The USAID/Kenya Agile and Harmonized Assistance for Devolved Institutions (AHADI) Project) Project

Dear Potential Offerors:

The United States Government, represented by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), East Africa Regional Mission, is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations for the performance of services detailed in the attached RFP to support a contract that will be administered by USAID’s Kenya Democracy, Rights and Governance Office in Nairobi, Kenya. This procurement is being conducted through full and open competition, for which the procedures for “contracting by negotiation, trade‐off process” method of procurement, as described in Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and AIDAR, will apply.

Proposals will be accepted from Kenya and international, U.S. business and U.S. small business, for-profit and non-profit organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) including universities, research organizations, professional associations, and other relevant special interest associations. Faith-Based and community organizations are also eligible to participate. In support of USAID’s interest in expanding the number and sustainability of development partners, USAID encourages proposals from potential new local partners.

Subject to availability of funds, USAID contemplates award of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion type contract. The maximum estimated cost of the contract (costs and fee) is US$ 45-50 million covering a performance period of five years. Offerors should not necessarily strive to meet the maximum amount. However, Offerors must propose costs that they believe are appropriate, realistic and reasonable for the work. Cost proposals will be evaluated as part of the Best-Value procedure in determining contract award, including cost effectiveness of approaches to achieve the desired results.

A minimum of 60% of project funding shall be allocated over the five-year program for local organizations (with even higher percentages encouraged). 30% of project funding shall be used for the Grants under Contracts program. 30% shall be used as subcontracts and purchase orders for management responsibilities and to implement activities as required. The Grants under Contract portion of the funding shall consist of a minimum of $15,000,000 (with greater amounts encouraged, if feasible). USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements with international or regional organizations as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services. Exclusivity contracts or teaming agreements with local organizations in Kenya are prohibited given the limited pool of partner organizations fitting the criteria for a locally-controlled organization.

It is the responsibility of the recipient of this solicitation document to ensure that it has been received in its entirety, including subsequent solicitation amendments, if any. USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.

In addition to regularly checking the Federal Business Opportunity (FBO) website for important new information, potential Offerors are encouraged to register to receive email notifications by going to the FBO page for Agile and Harmonized Assistance for Devolved Institutions (AHADI) project in Kenya, click on the "Watch This Opportunity" link, registering for an account to login, and following the instructions.

Questions, comments and requests for clarifications must be sent to csigner@usaid.gov and copy to jkibabu@usaid.gov no later than the date and time mentioned above.

USAID will hold a Pre-Proposal Conference to discuss the USAID/Kenya Agile and Harmonized Assistance for Devolved Institutions (AHADI) Project)RFP. The purpose of the Pre-Proposal Conference is to ensure an understanding of the RFP’s technical objectives and to review the application process. The Conference agenda will include a short presentation of the RFP and a question/answer session based on participants’ review of the RFP. All interested potential Offerors are welcome to attend, but it will be limited to 2 representatives per Offeror and all attendees must register.

Registration instructions: If you are interested in attending the Pre-Proposal Conference on May 30, 2013 in Nairobi, Kenya, please send an email to Charles Signer, Contracting Officer, via e-mail at csigner@usaid.gov with a copy to Justine Kibabu, Acquisition and Assistance Specialist, at jkibabu@usaid.gov by close of business May 24, 2013. Include the name of your organization and the name(s) of the person(s) who will attend. USAID will respond with an email confirming registration, details of the location of the meeting, and a confirmation of the date and time. You must have a registration confirmation in order to be guaranteed entrance.

Following the Pre-Proposal Conference, USAID will make the following publicly available on Fedbizopps.gov website (http://www.fbo.gov/): the Pre-Proposal Conference presentation, the list of questions submitted in writing on May 28, 2013, answers to those questions, and the participant list. Oral answers from any USAID source during the Pre-Proposal Conference will not be binding on the U.S. Government.

Issuance of this solicitation and the submission of a proposal do not constitute any guarantee or a commitment on the part of the U.S. Government or USAID to make an award; neither does it constitute any obligation or authorization by USAID to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal. USAID reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received. Award of a contract will be subject to availability of funds and proper completion of required USAID internal processes.

Thank you for your interest in working with USAID.

Sincerely, /s/ Sunil Xavier Supervisory Contracting Officer

SOL-615-13-000012

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER LETTER

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION A – SF 33 – SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD FORM

8SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

8B.1

PURPOSE

8B.2

CONTRACT TYPE

8B.3

ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

8B.4

CONTRACT LINE ITEMS

9B.5

CONTRACT BUDGET AND CEILINGS

9B.6

COST REIMBURSABLE

9B.7

INDIRECT COST

10B.8

CEILING ON INDIRECT COST RATES AND FINAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR INDIRECT COSTS

10B.9

SUBCONTRACTORS

12SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

12C.1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

13C.2

PROJECT CONTEXT/BACKGROUND

16C.3

PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH

16C.3.1

USAID/KENYA’S INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING

16C.3.2

AGILE, ADAPTIVE PROGRAMMING

17C.3.3

USAID FORWARD AND LOCAL CAPACITY

18C.3.4

GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS

19C.4

PROGRAMMATIC LINKAGES

19C.4.1.

CROSS-SECTOR FUNDING

20C.4.2

LINKAGES TO OTHER USAID/KENYA PROJECTS

22C.4.3

LINKAGES TO OTHER USAID/KENYA DRG PROJECTS

23C.4.4

LINKAGES TO THE WORK OF OTHER DONORS

25C.5

TECHNICAL APPROACH

25C.5.1 OBJECTIVE #1: TARGETED COUNTIES PROVIDE HIGHER QUALITY SERVICES THROUGH IMPROVED GOVERNANCE

35C.5.2 OBJECTIVE #2: IMPROVED REPRESENTATION OF CITIZEN INTERESTS AND OVERSIGHT OF TARGETED COUNTY GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

40C.5.3 OBJECTIVE #3: FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEVOLVED SYSTEM INCREASED THROUGH IMPROVED INTRA-GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT AND COOPERATION.

44C.5.4 Program Modifier/Rapid Response Mechanism (USD$ 5,000,000)

44C.6

RISKS/ASSUMPTIONS/CONSTRAINTS

45C.7

MONITORING, EVALUATION, REPORTING, LEARNING AND ADAPTING

46C.7.1

IMPACT EVALUATION

48C.8

GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT

49SECTION D – PACKAGING AND MARKING

49D.1

AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

49D.2

BRANDING POLICY AND STRATEGY

50D.3

APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR BRANDING IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKING PLAN

51SECTION E – INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

51E.1

NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

51E.2

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

51E.3

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

52SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

52F.1

52F.2

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

52F.3

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

52F.3

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

53F.5

KEY PERSONNEL

55F.6

MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACT

55F.7

REPORTS AND OTHER DELIVERABLES

61F.8

REPORTING FORMAT

62F.9

LANGUAGE OF REPORTS AND OTHER OUTPUTS

62F.10

EVALUATIONS

62F.11

QUARTERLY AND ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTING

63SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

63G.1

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICE

63G.2 CONTRACTING OFFICER AND TECHNICAL DIRECTION AND DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE USAID OFFICIALS

63G.3

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE

63G.4

TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIP WITH USAID

65G.5

ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL

65G.6

PAYING OFFICE

65G.7

CONTRACTOR PAYMENT ADDRESS

65G.8

AIDAR 752.7003 DOCUMENTATION FOR PAYMENT (NOV 1998)

67G.9

ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

67G.10

CONTRACTOR’S PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT

68SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

68H.1

68H.2 AIDAR 752.225-70 SOURCE AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012)(CLASS DEVIATION NO. OAA-DEV-12-01C)

69H.3

GOVERNMENT OF KENYA LABOR MARKET POLICY

69H.4

PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

70H.5

AIDAR 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007)

70H.6

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION

72H.7

752.231‐71 SALARY SUPPLEMENTS FOR HG EMPLOYEES (OCT 1998)

72H.8

PERSONAL IDENTITY VERIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL (JULY 2007)

72H.9

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE -12

73H.10 AIDAR 722.170 EMPLOYMENT OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS (TCN’S) AND COOPERATING COUNTRY NATIONALS (CCN’S)

74H.11

AIDAR 752.7004 EMERGENCY LOCATOR INFORMATION (JUL 1997)

75H.12.

AIDAR 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTS (JAN 2004)

76H.13

INSURANCE AND SERVICES

77H.14

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

78H.15

AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

78H.16

LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

78H.17

CONTRACTOR’S STAFF SUPPORT AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS

78H.18

AUTHORIZED WORK DAY/WEEK

78H.19

AIDAR 752.7025 APPROVALS (APR 1984)

79H.20 AIDAR 752.7032 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (JAN 1990)

79H.21

BUSINESS CLASS TRAVEL

79H.22 CONTRACTOR’S USE OF PROJECT VEHICLES AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES

79H.23

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED FACILITIES OR PROPERTY

80H.24

AIDAR 752.245‐71 TITLE TO AND CARE OF PROPERTY (APR 1984)

80H.25

APPROVALS FOR NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY PURCHASES

80H.26

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES (JAN 2002)

81H.27

VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT) AND CUSTOM DUTIES

81H.28

REPORTING ON FOREIGN TAXES (JULY 2007)

82H.29

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

83H.30

AIDAR 752.7034 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLAIMER (DEC 1991)

83H.31

EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM FINANCING

84H.32

SECURITY CONDITIONS

84H.33

SECURITY REPORTING

84H.34

LIFE SUPPORT AND SECURITY SERVICES

84H.35

USAID DISABILITY POLICY - ACQUISITION (DECEMBER 2004)

85H.36

AIDAR 752.7101 VOLUNTARY POPULATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES (JUNE 2008)

85H.37

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

85H.38

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

86H.39

NONDISCRIMINATION (JUN 2012)

86H.40

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

87H.41

REQUESTS FOR CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT

87H.42

AIDAR 752.227‐14 RIGHTS IN DATA – GENERAL (OCT 2007)

87H.43

TRANSITION OF KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

88H.44 USAID IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 508 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AND FEDERAL ACQUISITION CIRCULAR (FAC) 97-27 "ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY

88H.45

NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY PURCHASES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

89H.46 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN AND THE SF 294 – SUBCONTRACTING REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND SF 295 – SUMMARY CONTRACTING REPORT

89H.47

PUBLICATIONS AND MEDIA RELEASES (JAN 2004)

90H.48

PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS

90H.49 PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PROMOTE, SUPPORT, OR ADVOCATE THE LEGALIZATION OR PRACTICE OF PROSTITUTION – TIP ACQUISITION (MAY 2007)

91H.50

GENDER CONSIDERATION

91H.51

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT -- IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES

91H.52

SUBMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS FOR AUDIT (FEB 2006)

92H.53

752.219-70 USAID MENTOR- PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM (JUL 2007)

92H.54

PRESS RELATIONS

93PART II ‐ CONTRACT CLAUSES

93SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

93I.1

95I.2

52.252‐2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

96I.3

52.227‐23 RIGHTS TO PROPOSAL DATA (TECHNICAL) (JUN 1987)

96I.4

52.204-1 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT (DEC 1989)

96I.5

52.203‐13 CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (APR 2010)

99I.6 52.209‐9 UPDATES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (FEB 2012)

100I.7 52.232-99 PROVIDING ACCELARATED PAYMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS - SUBCONTRACTORS (DEVIATION) (AUG 2012)

100I.8

52.232-22 LIMITATION OF FUNDS

103PART III – LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

103SECTION J – LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

104PART III – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

104SECTION K – REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

109SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

109L.1

NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

109L.2

52.215‐1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS‐COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004)

113L.3

52.233‐2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

113L.4

GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION

113L.5

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

115L.6

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

120L.7

COST PROPOSALS

124L.9

OFFER VALIDITY

124L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF BRANDING IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKING PLANS

127SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

127M.1

GENERAL INFORMATION

127M.2

EVALUATION FACTORS

128M.3

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

130M.4

COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

130M.5

SOURCE SELECTION

131M.6

DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE

131M.7

AWARD

132ATTACHMENTS

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1

PURPOSE

The proposed AHADI (Agile and Harmonized Assistance for Devolved Institutions) project will help make it possible for Kenya’s devolution process to uphold its promise, instead of further inflaming longstanding issues within the country. AHADI, which means “promise” in Kiswahili, will strengthen the governance systems of Counties – making them more competent, transparent, accountable and inclusive in their governance and service delivery. It will also build the capacity of civil society to more effectively represent citizen interests and aspirations to County governments. Finally, the project will support the development of institutions and structures that will help Counties cooperate and advance their interests with the National government.

B.2

CONTRACT TYPE

The U.S. Government contemplates award of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion type contract resulting from this solicitation. The Statement of Work (SOW) for this contract is laid out in Section C of this document. Offerors are expected to design and propose a program that will meet the requirements therein. The period of performance for this CPFF contract is five years.

For the consideration set forth below, the Contractor shall achieve the performance objectives and deliverables or outputs described in Sections, C, D and F and otherwise comply with all contract requirements.

B.3

ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

(a) The Total Estimated Cost for a period of five year is $______________. The Fixed Fee (if any) is $____________. The Total Estimated Cost plus Fixed Fee (if any) is $____________.

(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 of the contract period hereunder is $_________________. The Contractor shall not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount unless authorized by the Contracting Officer pursuant to the clause of this contract entitled “Limitation of Funds” (FAR 52.232‐22). See Section I of this contract.

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

(d). Because the clauses entitled "Allowable Cost and Payment" (FAR 52.216-7) and "Fixed Fee" (FAR 52.216-8)are incorporated into this contract, the terms and conditions of these clauses apply after total payments of fixed fee reach eighty-five percent (85%) of the total fixed fee.

B.4

CONTRACT LINE ITEMS

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)

Totals

CLIN 0001

Program Implementation

TBD

CLIN 0002

Program Modifier

$5,000,000

CLIN 0003

Fixed Fee

TBD

CLIN 0004

Grants under Contract

TBD

NOTES:

Contract Line item Number “CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0003, and CLIN 0004” are the prime Contractor’s estimated direct and indirect cost for project management performance plus fees. Grants under Contract CLIN 0004 will not include fees. Payment for these CLINs shall be handled on an actual cost reimbursement, plus fees payment basis.

The “Ceiling Price” is the total of all CLINs and represents the total maximum value of the contract. This contract does not cover (and will not reimburse) host country taxes, customs liens and other fees pursuant to the USAID/Kenya agreement.

B.5

CONTRACT BUDGET AND CEILINGS

(a) The contract budget found in the Section B.4 contract line items is based on the contractor’s original proposal and/or final proposal revision, which was accepted by USAID through award of this contract.

(b) Without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer, the contractor may not exceed the total estimated cost set forth in the budget or the obligated amount.

B.6

COST REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable shall be limited to necessary reasonable, allowable and allocable costs determined in accordance with FAR 31 (Contract Cost Principles), OMB A‐21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions), 2 CFR 230 (Cost Principles for Non‐Profit Organizations), FAR 52.216‐7 (Allowable Cost and Payment), Allowable Cost and Payment (DEC 2002),FAR 52.216‐8 (Fixed Fee), if applicable, and AIDAR 752.7003 (Documentation for Payment), in order to be reimbursable under this contract.

B.7

INDIRECT COST

The contract clause entitled “FAR 52.216‐7, Allowable Cost and Payment (JUN 2011)”, specifies that the indirect cost rates shall be established for each of the contractor’s accounting periods that apply to this contract. 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/

2/

1/Base of Application:

Type of Rate:

Period:

Source:

2/Base of Application:

Type of Rate:

Period:

Source:

[To be determined] Note: The Contractor is allowed to recover applicable indirect costs (i.e., overhead, G&A, etc.) on other direct costs (ODCs), if it is part of the Contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31, and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.

B.8

CEILING ON INDIRECT COST RATES AND FINAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR INDIRECT COSTS

(a) Reimbursement for allowable indirect costs shall be at final negotiated rates but not in excess of the following ceiling rates:

Description

Rate

Base

Type

Period

[To be completed by the Offeror]

(b) The contractor shall make no changes in its established method of classifying or allocating indirect costs without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

(c) USAID is not obligated to pay any additional amount on account of indirect costs above the ceiling rates established in the contract.

(d) This understanding will not change any monetary ceiling, obligation or cost limitation established in the contract.

B.9

SUBCONTRACTORS

Pursuant to FAR Clause 52.244-4, the following subcontractors were identified and agreed to during negotiations to provide the services covered by this contract.

TBD

B. 10

MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

CLIN 001, 002, and 003 are considered non-severable, and is therefore a multi-year contract as defined in FAR 17.103. Therefore, this contract is subject to the requirements of FAR 17.106.

Cancellation Dates:

Contract Year 2:

September 1, 2014 Contract Year 3:

September 1, 2015 Contract Year 4:

September 1, 2016 Contract Year 5:

September 1, 2017 Cancellation Ceiling:

This is a CPFF type contract where the contractor is authorized to be reimbursed for all costs which are allowable in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Costs and Payment”. Therefore, the contractor will not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the contract should the contract be cancelled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2. Therefore, the cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is [negotiated amount].

B.11

PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

The Contractor’s fixed fee is tied to the accomplishment of the deliverables outlined in Section F. Upon successful achievement of the deliverable, the Contractor shall provide evidence of the achievement to the Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Contracting Officer. Upon acceptance by USAID and receipt of approval from the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall submit an invoice for the amount of the fee associated with the deliverable.

[To be completed at Award]

END OF SECTION B

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

With the adoption of the 2010 Constitution, Kenya has set itself inexorably on a path towards devolution. While many questions remain as to the extent and quality of that process, devolution is expected to move forward following the March 2013 elections – with 47 Counties formed, led by newly elected officials wielding new powers that will have to navigate an uncharted course in governance and service delivery. Yet there is great concern that the country has not adequately prepared for this transition. And, without the proper strategies, capacities, resources, and structures in place, devolution will not succeed as hoped.

The lesson of decentralization from around the world is that it can be successful in creating more responsive, open, and pluralistic government. But it also runs the risk of systemic failure that further exacerbates the problems that it was intended to alleviate – often leading to a frustrated populace and a re-centralization of power. This is nowhere more true than in the Kenyan context. While devolution holds the promise of potentially alleviating conflict, delivering more responsive services, and empowering citizens, it could just as easily exacerbate ethnic tension, worsen service delivery, and reinforce corruption and unaccountable governance.

In addition to completely remaking Kenya’s governance structure, devolution will impact every facet of life in Kenya and every service delivered by the Government of Kenya (GOK). Consequently, it will affect every sector that USAID/Kenya engages in, including democracy and governance, health, agriculture and natural resources, economic growth, opportunities for youth engagement, and eventually education. It is arguably the single most significant governance process that Kenya faces over the next decade. Improving democracy and governance systems within a County contributes significantly to the legitimacy of local governments and their ability to provide improved services across multiple sectors, thus better meeting citizen needs, and forging a stronger link between citizens and their government.

The purpose of the AHADI project is to help Kenya achieve the promise of devolution: a governance system that is more transparent, accountable, effective in service delivery, and responsive to empowered citizens. While at the same time, the project seeks to help Kenya minimize the potential dangers of devolution: diffusion of corruption, increased marginalization, exacerbated conflict, and disruptions in service delivery. Activities to support successful devolution fall squarely within one of USAID’s Core Development Objectives: “Expand and sustain the ranks of stable, prosperous, and democratic states: supporting the next generation of democratic transitions,” as detailed in the USAID Policy Framework 2011-2015.

There are three objectives under AHADI that are further elaborated below:

· Objective #1: Targeted Counties provide higher quality services through improved governance.

· Objective #2: Improved representation of citizen interests and oversight of targeted County government performance.

· Objective #3: Functionality and effectiveness of the devolved system increased through improved intra- government engagement and cooperation.

The Contractor shall improve targeted County governance by making sure that it is more informed, capable, transparent, accountable and open to the participation of its citizens – especially historically marginalized groups. The Contractor shall also assist Counties to work more effectively with each other and the National government to ease the transition process, jointly manage services, learn from each other’s efforts, and give County concerns a platform at the National level. At the same time, the Contractor shall support civil society to mobilize citizens to action, as well as to engage with County governments to effectively represent citizen interests and hold those governments to account. Thus, the Contractor shall work on both the “supply” side of good governance through support to targeted Counties, and the “demand” side through support to civil society. It is at this intersection of supply and demand – where Counties have the tools and capacity to govern well and provide quality services, and citizens are able to incentivize good governance and quality service by effectively monitoring it and advocating for it – that AHADI will achieve results that enhance citizens’ lives, address long-standing development challenges, and help fulfill the promise of devolution.

This proposed 5 year activity is expected to commence in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2013. The Contractor shall work both at the National level – benefiting the governance of all Counties to an extent – and at the County level, where it shall concentrate on improving governance in 15-20 targeted Counties. In line with USAID Forward objectives, it shall be implemented to strengthen the capacity of local organizations to incrementally take over project leadership. It shall also maximize cross-sector programming opportunities to enhance developmental impact and make use of a diversity of funding sources to affect both general governance and sector-specific issues including health, agriculture and natural resources, education and youth. Multi-sector programming is complex and shall require close interaction across USAID technical teams at the Mission and with the implementing partner(s). This type of activity shall also require the Contractor to have strong financial management tracking systems and strong monitoring and evaluation systems so that each dollar invested can be traced to its impact in the respective sector at county level (i.e. health, agriculture and natural resources, education and youth, and democracy, rights and governance).

C.2

PROJECT CONTEXT/BACKGROUND

Kenyan governance has historically been plagued by the twin challenges of a lack of inclusion and accountability. Most elections in the country’s history have not been free and fair, and leaders have often been more interested in perpetuating their own rule and capturing government resources than in serving the populace and being responsive to its needs. When elections were held, they were seen as “winner take all” affairs – an outlook that dramatically raised the stakes (often leading to violence) and led to the winning group seeing it as their “turn to eat” (as the Kenyan phrase goes; or in other words, taking advantage of the victory spoils to the detriment of the losing group). Devolution was intended to address inclusion by creating more opportunities for different groups to “win” at the County level (even if they lose at the National level). It was intended to address issues of accountability by giving people electoral power over local politicians – the decision-makers theoretically closest to the grassroots and most responsible for meeting citizen needs. However, while there are indeed opportunities for devolution to address these historic challenges, there are many potential pitfalls along the way that can undermine the intentions of reform. Those concerns are described below, and the Contractor shall ensure the AHADI project addresses those concerns, and therefore increases the likelihood that devolution will fulfill its promise.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SERVICES

Though the Constitution gives a broad framework dividing responsibility between the National government and the Counties, there are still many questions regarding the details of who does what, how that is decided, when the transfer takes place, and how effectively services will be delivered when the transfer is complete. Ministries will have to work closely with the Transition Authority (TA) to divide responsibilities clearly and to transfer them to the Counties at a reasonable pace. Kenya’s devolution process could fail if it precedes either too slowly or too rapidly. For example, the former could mean the central government dragging its feet on the transfer of power, while the latter could occur through delegation of responsibility before capacity is in place. In addition, hopes amongst the Kenyan populace for devolution are extremely high and rapid improvements are expected. However, given the very real possibility that service delivery will decline for a period as Counties learn how to manage their new responsibilities, those expectations will have to be managed carefully as concurrent efforts are made to rapidly ramp up service delivery. A final challenge is the possibility of the National Government seeking to keep intact the Provincial Administration to maintain executive power at the local level. These efforts could result in a parallel system to County government that would require Counties to coordinate closely with the perpetuated Provincial Administration to avoid duplication and conflict over responsibility.

COUNTY CAPACITY

It will be important for Counties to develop capacity of both high-level decision-makers and on-the-ground staff so that they will be prepared to take on their new responsibilities. However, there are many questions left unanswered as to which civil servants will be transferred to Counties and how long they will be retained there. Additional concerns are that the hiring process will be based on cronyism instead of merit, and that remote Counties will not be able to attract sufficient talent. Though the TA is tasked with building up the capacity of Counties, it is unclear if it will have sufficient resources to do so in a timely manner. Moreover, at the highest levels of the Counties, there will be numerous elected and appointed leaders who have never held office and will not arrive with the knowledge they need to effectively lead the County. Given the requirement that no more than 2/3 of all elected and appointed bodies be represented by a single gender, many of the new leaders that need additional capacity will be women who may not have had the opportunities their male colleagues have had to develop their leadership capacity.

FUNDING

One of the biggest potential pitfalls with devolution is the possibility that there won’t be sufficient funding provided/created at the County level to pay for all of the services devolved. County financial requirements will likely not be fully met by the planned National revenue transfers to the Counties (a minimum of 15% of National revenues, according to the Constitution). Many of the poorest Counties will be challenged to raise their own revenues through taxes and fees that do not put an undue burden on their constituents (e.g., through high health service fees, property taxes, etc.) This potential gap between County revenues and responsibilities could have a dramatic negative impact on service delivery across sectors, and create a further disincentive against Counties taking ownership of services (especially health services) that are heavily supported by outside donors. It is also not clear if the entire process is affordable for the country as a whole without taking on untenable levels of debt at the National and County levels.

CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

While devolution is intended to bring government closer to citizens, and hence make it more transparent and accountable, it also provides new entry points and opportunities for corruption, and could easily replicate old National patterns of obfuscation, unresponsiveness and unaccountability at the local level. The recent discovery of large oil resources in Kenya could potentially result in even greater corruption issues with regards to land and extractive industries transparency. Ensuring that County governments are open and engaged with citizenry will be an enormous challenge going forward. While the new Constitution and legislation include principles of transparency and inclusive governance, there are few if any specific mechanisms described therein to guarantee it. And while the Public Financial Management (PFM) Law largely seems to balance National policy with local control while creating a degree of accountability, it will still require diligent application by the Counties. Much will need to be done to assist Counties to set up the structures and opportunities that give life to these overall principles, and that will allow for an engaged citizenry that can participate in governance and hold representatives to account. Without this transparency and accountability, the entire purpose of devolution will be undermined, and funding for needed services will be lost to corruption.

MARGINALIZED ETHNIC GROUPS

Devolution will help to address the National-level “winner take all” problem by creating more opportunities for different ethnic groups to achieve power at the County level. However, in so doing, it will also create new minorities within County borders that could potentially fall victim to a replication of the National “our turn to eat” mentality. More than half of Kenya’s 47 Counties will have a sizeable ethnic minority who are likely to be under-represented at the County level. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a minority is shut out of equitable services either through capture by the majority or simple neglect. Though the new Constitution and subsequent legislation enshrines protections for marginalized groups and supports their inclusion, these documents are short on details for how this will happen, which could lead to County governments either ignoring those principles or falling back on tokenism without actually addressing minority concerns. Two examples in the legislation help to illustrate this. First, though County officials are elected, all officials below that level are appointed. These appointed positions could quite easily be abused by those in power – appointing managers that are not responsive to the needs of minorities in the areas they oversee, and thus further marginalizing those who are already disenfranchised. Another example lies in the fact that six representatives of marginalized groups will be appointed to the County assembly, but the legislation is silent on how those seats will be equitably divided, or how the appointees will be chosen. A single group could be rewarded for supporting the majority while another is shut out completely, or the majority could appoint “safe” minority representatives that they know will not actively stand up for the groups they are meant to represent.

GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT

National administrative commitment to devolution could change dramatically over time based on elections and/or the changing priorities of those in power. Moreover, it is likely that commitment to devolution will vary within an administration depending on the Ministry or other body in question. In addition to elected and appointed officials in the executive, legislators will also have considerable say over the extent, pace, and implementation of decentralization. At the County level, newly elected local politicians may be willing to engage with their constituents, civil society, and donor-funded projects in a way that enhances their County’s transparency and accountability. However, some County leaders may turn aside such efforts. This variability among Counties will provide both a challenge and opportunity for meaningful engagement. It also provides a brand-new prospect for demonstrating differing outcomes between Counties that embrace participatory governance and those that reject it.

CIVIL SOCIETY

In many Counties, especially those further from major population centers, civil society is disjointed, underdeveloped and lacks sustainability, institutional capacity and the skills required to carry out its advocacy and watchdog roles. In many cases, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) lack a true constituency of supporters that would give weight and grassroots validity to their advocacy, and they often do not work effectively with citizens to help them engage in the governance process. This can lead to a passive and apathetic citizenry that has high hopes for the success of devolution, but that does not fully realize that success is predicated on greater citizen involvement.

LAND AND BOUNDARIES

Land issues are among the most contentious faced by Kenya, and although the new Constitution, the subsequent laws that have been passed, and the coming County structure offer some opportunities for grappling with these long standing land issues, there are also numerous challenges ahead. First there is the possibility that without proper oversight, elites will continue the historic practice of capture of public lands at the County level; or put in place policies that allow their constituents to benefit from resources to the exclusion of marginalized groups – further exacerbating existing tensions. The legal framework on land is also less than clear on National versus County responsibility. Recent legislation has called for the establishment of a National Registrar, County Registrars, a National Land Commission, County-level offices of the National Land Commission, County Land Boards, and Community Land Boards while failing to clearly delineate who has responsibility for what. Confusion over these structures can lead to mismanagement and conflict. There is also potential for conflict as sub-County boundaries are drawn. Groups may find themselves marginalized within wards or constituencies that are dominated by other ethnicities, and may protest vociferously.

C.3

PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH

C.3.1

USAID/KENYA’S INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING

This USAID/Kenya project is an integral element of the US Government’s assistance in Kenya. USAID/Kenya and the AHADI Contractor shall work in close consultation throughout the implementation of the project. USAID/Kenya and the Contractor shall function as an integrated, operational team with shared program vision and equal commitment to success of the program. Generally, the Contractor is responsible for implementation of the program strategy (and recommending changes in that strategy) as approved by USAID/Kenya to achieve the desired impact. The Contractor shall bring to bear its best corporate capacities and strengths, through its field and headquarters staff (as well as that of its partners), to effectively design and implement program activities towards achieving the program’s objectives as well as contribute to the on-going development of responsive, informed program direction.

Based upon continuing context analysis, USAID/Kenya, through the assigned Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), is responsible for identifying changes in overall program strategy and programmatic focus. The COR will consult with the Contractor and Contractor staff on a day-to-day basis, share analysis and communicate program strategy to the program team. Under the direction of the CO, the COR will provide technical direction for any changes in the types and/or range of organizations and grantees to be supported or funded, as well as any proposed changes to the geographic or issue-specific focus areas of assistance. If necessary, the COR will be responsible for invoking CLIN 0002 with the approval of the Contracting Officer. While the COR has primary responsibility for on-going strategic, political context analysis, this strategic analysis is also directly informed by the local analysis of Contractor staff and the evaluation of recent activities.

This operational approach affords maximum flexibility – a definitive asset in such a fluid environment, but also requires very close communication, cooperation and coordination between USAID/Kenya and the Contractor. Such an integrated, collaborative approach is essential for managing the stress of rapid implementation of a complex and politically delicate program in a fluid environment while maintaining programmatic adaptability.

C.3.2

AGILE, ADAPTIVE PROGRAMMING

The Contractor shall respond quickly to changing realities and priorities. As elaborated throughout this solicitation, this shall require the Contractor to adapt to changes in the project and operating environment that include:

· The relative strengths and expressed preferences of NGO partners,

· The relative strengths and demonstrated commitment of County governments,

· Complimentary projects (whether they are USG or funded by other donors),

· Shifts in USG priorities for project activities and geographic focus based on funding sources or other requirements, and

· Shifts in the operating environment that affects the identified risks/assumptions of the project.

The tasks and activities described below in section C.5 are extensive, but not exhaustive. With the approval of USAID/Kenya, the Contractor will have the flexibility to focus on different activities for differing Counties within the parameters of the SOW. No matter which activities are chosen for a particular context, Objectives 1 and 2 shall be met for each County. A flexible approach that allows the Contractor to adapt and respond to the work of other donors, USG entities, CSOs and County governments shall be required. The Contractor shall work with USAID to put mechanisms in place to gauge which activities are relevant in which context, and how they should be sequenced. (For example, work with the TA and the baseline study will obviously come early in the project, while assisting Counties to raise revenues may come later.)

In responding to the Statement of Work, the Contractor shall propose the full palate of activities and achievable results that it feels will be necessary to meet the objectives described, and budget accordingly for each activity.

After completion of the baseline study and MOUs described in Task #1.1, the Contractor shall then refine this workplan to match the new understanding of what results can be achieved, as well as further detail interventions proposed at the National level and for each County. This revised plan shall be presented to USAID for discussion and approval.

Then, throughout the implementation of AHADI, the Contractor shall periodically participate in and/or facilitate in-country Strategy Review Sessions. The purpose of these sessions is to provide a collective platform for sharing information on overall progress with regards to devolution, updating the project’s situation or problem analysis, and determining how best to adapt to evolving local dynamics and new knowledge gained from real-time monitoring and evaluation. The participants, nature, structure, location and frequency of these periodic sessions will depend on the context, the needs of the project and the staff at the time (to be established by mutual agreement between the AHADI COR and the Contractor). The appropriate emphasis among learning, coordinating, planning and adapting will be determined in advance in consultation with the COR.

In general, these shall be no more than quarterly and no less than annual events, and shall take place at both the National-level and, periodically, at the County-level as well. A likely schedule would include County sessions in the first half of the year to evaluate County-level strategies, and a National session in the second half of the year to evaluate the overall project strategy. As feasible and relevant, these sessions shall include representatives from partner CSOs and Counties that can provide local perspectives, as well as representatives from projects funded by other USAID/Kenya offices and donors to enhance cross-sector learning and coordination. Contractor field staff shall be available to participate in all sessions, which may include presentations and facilitation – based on a collaborative agenda design process. The Contractor may also be asked to provide logistical support as necessary. This may include: finding and booking location; paying for travel, lodging, meals, and transportation of non-USG staff; note-taking; and equipment provision.

During relevant sessions, the Contractor shall recommend changes in project emphasis for discussion (as identified through research, analysis, ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and project implementation). The COR will consider these recommendations, identify other changes for discussion, and provide guidance on program emphasis going forward. Outcomes of these sessions shall be documented by the Contractor through a brief summary report outlining proceedings/agenda, proposed adaptations, conclusions or outcomes and future action items. Any adaptations and refinements proposed through these ongoing interactions with the COR must be within the approved SOW and budget, or approved via the invocation of the CLIN 0002 Program Modifier/Rapid Response Mechanism. In cases where changes cannot be covered by the existing scope or through the program modifier, prior CO approval will be necessary to approve those changes.

C.3.3

USAID FORWARD AND LOCAL CAPACITY

This effort shall capitalize on strategies articulated in the USAID Forward reform effort – seeking to encourage and catalyze innovative approaches while building the capacity of local organizations. The prime Contractor for AHADI shall develop the capacity of the Sub-Contractors and Grantees so that the Sub-Recipients shall be eligible to receive a direct award from USAID or other donors in the future.

While most local organizations shall have a traditionally Sub-Contractor or Grantee relationship with the prime Contractor, the Contractor shall identify a minimum of one local organization that shall be able to take on additional project management responsibilities – in essence to become a “local prime.” The Contractor may wish to identify its potential local partner(s) in its proposal; however that is not a requirement. And the Contractor shall ensure that it is not “picking winners” in advance of project implementation that will demonstrate actual capacity and commitment of its local partner(s). The Contractor shall provide opportunities and incentive structures that place the onus on the local partner(s) to truly commit to changes that shall allow them to grow into their leadership role. It is understood that partners may be identified and added over the life of the project, and that some who were identified early on may drop out if they have not demonstrated sufficient commitment or progress. However, it is expected that the prime Contractor shall ensure that at least one local partner emerges in a primary leadership/management role during the life of the project.

The local partner(s) shall increasingly have authority over functions such as Grants under Contract management, financial management, capacity building of other recipients, project planning, donor coordination and communication, etc. While the prime Contractor shall take the lead on the project at the start, it shall build the capacity of local partners that self-identify as wanting to take on more funding and management responsibility. The prime shall put in place a capacity building plan and incentive structure that shall guide these organizations to increase their capacity in the necessary areas. As the project progresses and as the local organizations meet benchmarks demonstrating their readiness, the balance of funding and activity shall shift from the prime to the local partner(s).

By the midpoint of the project, the responsibilities and budgets for the prime and local partner(s) shall be shared equally. In the latter stages of the project, the local partner(s) shall take over the lead role – with the prime Contractor simply passing-through the bulk of funding and providing a reduced amount of technical support. Budgets shall closely track the changes in relative responsibility between the partners. It is estimated that the prime Contractor shall be funded at a higher level in the first year, declining in the final years of the project, while the budget passed through the prime Contractor to the co-managing local organization(s) shall increase over time. Given this arrangement, the Contractor shall ensure that a minimum of 60% of funding is provided to local organizations (either through management sub-contracts or Grants under Contract). Further details on USAID/Kenya expectations for partnering with local organizations is described below in section L.7.

C.3.4

GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS

There shall be instances where the Contractor shall provide opportunities for participation in the project to all Counties (e.g. a National-level training for head County auditors, support to associations of County sector experts, providing technical input into national standards and policies, etc.). However, given its limited resources, the Contractor shall be selective, and focus the majority of its efforts on strengthening key targeted Counties.