SOL-617-12-000014.pdf

USAID/Uganda RFP-617-09-009

NUDEIL

Issuance Date: April 13, 2012 Deadline for Submitting Questions: April 20, 2012 Closing Date: May 20, 2012 Closing Time: 4:00pm, EDT/Washington DC

Subject: Solicitation Number: SOL-617-12-000014 Feed the Future Agricultural Inputs activity (FTF Ag-Inputs)

Dear Sir/Madam:

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Uganda, is seeking proposals from qualified firms/organizations interested in providing technical support towards agricultural input development in Uganda. FTF Ag-Inputs will enhance the use of high quality agricultural inputs in Uganda by focusing on increasing availability of inputs to farmers in FTF focus districts and decrease prevalence of counterfeit agricultural inputs.

USAID anticipates awarding a five-year Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for the implementation of this activity with a total estimated range of approximately $5,000,000 to $7,500,000 for the entire five year period. Providing a range for the contract does not mean that Offerors should necessarily strive to meet the maximum amount. Offerors must propose costs that it believes are realistic and reasonable for the work. Cost proposals will be evaluated as part of a best value determination for contract award, including cost effective approaches to achieving the results.

This procurement shall be conducted under full and open competition under which any type of organization (U.S. and Non U.S. commercial [for profit] firms, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations) is eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 shall apply.

Section C of this solicitation sets the activities required to be implemented, Section K – Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements must be completed in full, Section L of the RFP sets forth the instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals and specifies the required contents of the proposals and Section M states the criteria by which proposals will be evaluated, and the award will be made.

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

Questions and Answers:

The deadline for receipt of questions and/or requests for clarifications is April 20, 2012.

Questions shall be submitted to the Acquisition and Assistance Assistant, Alimo Florence at KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov. The subject should read: AG-INPUTS SOL-617-12- 000014: Questions.

If substantive questions are received which affect the response to the solicitation, or if changes are made to the closing date and time, as well as other aspects of the RFP, this solicitation will be amended. Any amendments to this solicitation will be issued and posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps). Offerors are encouraged to check this website (http://www.fbo.gov) periodically. Offerors can register and use the Interested Vendor List (IVL) on the FedBizOpps page, so that firms can contact one another for consideration of teaming arrangements in response to this solicitation.

Submission:

Please submit your proposal in accordance with the requirements in Section L of this solicitation. Late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208.

Only electronic submissions will be accepted, at the following address:

KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov. No other forms of submission will be accepted. Please note that the designated initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure for proposal submission is the USAID/Washington internet server.

Issuance of this solicitation does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government to award a contract nor does it commit the U.S. Government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation, and submission of a proposal. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers, if such action is considered to be in the best interest of the Government.

Thank you for your interest in USAID Uganda’s Feed the Future Agriculture Inputs activity (FTF Ag-Inputs).

Sincerely, Tracy J. Miller Contracting Officer USAID/ Uganda

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

USAID /UGANDA

2190 KAMPALA PLACE

WASHINGTON DC 20521-219

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER RATING PAGE OF

PAGES

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER 4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION 5. DATE ISSUED

SEE COVER PAGE

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

7. ISSUED BY CODE 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

USAID/UGANDA

PLOT 1577 GGABA ROAD

KAMPALA, UGANDA

(If other than Item 7)

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

9. Sealed offers in original and ____ copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if hand carried, in the depository located in until local (Kampala) time .

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All Offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

A. NAME B. TELEPHONE (NO COLLECT CALLS) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AREA CODE

256-414

NUMBER

306-001

EXT.

6634 KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

X A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM 3 X I CONTRACT CLAUSES 50

X B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 6 PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH.

X C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT 8 X J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 77

X D PACKAGING AND MARKING 23 PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

X E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 25

X F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 27

X G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 34 X L INSTR., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 86

X H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 38 X M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 103

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER

STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS 78

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within ________ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT 10 CALENDAR DAYS (%) 20 CALENDAR DAYS (%) 30 CALENDAR DAYS (%) CALENDAR DAYS (%)

(See Section I, Clause No. 52-232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT NO. DATE AMENDMENT NO. DATE

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated:

CODE FACILITY

16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER15A. NAME AND

ADDRESS

OF OFFEROR

(Type or print)

15B. TELEPHONE NUMBER 17. SIGNATURE 18. OFFER DATE

AREA CODE NUMBER EXT.

15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT FROM

ABOVE - ENTER SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION: 23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

10 U.S.C. 2304(a) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( )

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BYCODE

USAID/UGANDA

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE

CODE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

TRACY J. MILLER

27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

(REV. 9-97)

10. FOR INFORMATION CALL:

Alimo Florence

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

STANDARD FORM 33

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

SOLICITATION

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

N/A

SOL-617-12-000014

X

See Attached Table of Contents

X 1

Contents

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. PURPOSE

B.2. CONTRACT TYPE

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

B.4. INDIRECT COSTS (DEC 1997)

B.5. COST REIMBURSABLE

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 INTRODUCTION

C.2 OBJECTIVE

C.3 BACKGROUND

C.4 PROGRAM LINKAGES

C.5 RELATIONSHIP TO USAID/UGANDA’S CDCS & FTF STRATEGIES

C.6 OUTPUTS/RESULTS

C.7 GEOGRAPHIC AND COMMODITY FOCUS:

C.8 CROSS CUTTING ISSUES

C.9 MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

D.2 BRANDING AND MARKING POLICY

D.3 BRANDING STRATEGY

D.4. DELIVERABLES IN PAPER FORM

D.5 DELIVERABLES IN ELECTRONIC FORM

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1. NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

E.2. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.3. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

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 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS

F.5. TECHNICAL APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS

F.6. KEY PERSONNEL

F.7 AIDAR 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE

DOCUMENTS (JAN 2004)

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

USAID/Uganda Solicitation # SOL-617-12-000014

FTF AGRICULTURAL INPUTS ACTIVITY (FTF AG-INPUTS)

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 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES (JAN

2002)

H.4 INSURANCE AND SERVICES

H.5 752.228-70 MEDICAL EVACUATION (MEDEVAC) SERVICES (July 2007)

H.6 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

H.7 LOGISTIC SUPPORT

H.8. CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT

H.9 EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM FINANCING (MAR 2002)

H.10 REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES

H.11 USAID DISABILITY POLICY - ACQUISITION (DECEMBER 2004)

H.12 752.225-70 SOURCE, ORIGIN AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012)

H.13 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007)

H.14 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

H.15 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT

H.16 MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

H.17 HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE-12 (HSPD-12) (September 2006)

H.18 VALUE ADDED TAX AND CUSTOMS DUTIES

H.19 752.219-70 USAID MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM (JULY 13, 2007)

H.20 752.7032 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS (JAN 1990)

H.21 NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

H.22 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

H.23 EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND COOPERATING

COUNTRY NATIONALS

H.24 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

H.25 302.3.4.10 IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 508 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF

H.26 302.3.5.9 PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (OCT 2011)

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

I.2 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

I.3 52.216-7 ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT (DEC 2002)

I.4 52.216-8 FIXED FEE (MAR 1997)

I.5 52.229-8 TAXES--FOREIGN COST-REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS (MAR 1990)

I.6 52.203-13 CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (Apr 2010)

I.7 52.204-7 CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION (FEB 2012)

I.8 52.204-10 REPORTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND FIRST-TIER

SUBCONTRACT AWARDS (FEB 2012)

I.9 52.209-5 CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (Apr 2010)

I.10 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (FEB 2012)

I.11 52.215-23 LIMITATIONS ON PASS-THROUGH CHARGES (OCT 2009)

I.12 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999)

I.13 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)

I.14 52.232-25 PROMPT PAYMENT (OCT 2003)

I.15 COMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS (OCT 1994)

I.16 52.222-50 COMBATING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (FEB 2009)

I.17 52.227-23 RIGHTS TO PROPOSAL DATA (TECHNICAL) (JUN 1987)

I.18 52.249-4 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT (SERVICES)

(SHORT FORM) (APR 1984)

I.19 752.242-70 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT (OCT 2007)

I.20 752.245-71 TITLE TO AND CARE OF PROPERTY (APR 1984)

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENT LIST

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS

K.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

K.2 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (JAN 2006)

K.3 52.222-21 PROHIBITION OF SEGREGATED FACILITIES (FEB 1999)

K.4 INSURANCE - IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY

K.5 52.204-3 TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION (OCT 1998)

K.6 52.209-5 CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, PROPOSED

DEBARMENT, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DEC 2001)

K.7 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION (JUNE

2000)

K.8 52.230-7 PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE--COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CHANGES

(APR 2005)

K.9 COMPLIANCE WITH VETERANS EMPLOYMENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

K.10 SIGNATURE

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

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

L.2 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

L.3 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004)

L.4 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (AUG 1996)

L.5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.6 SUBMISSION/DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

L.8 COST/BUSINESS PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

M.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.4 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.5 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITVE RANGE AND CONTRACT AWARD

M.6 SOURCE SELECTION

M.7 CONTRACTING WITH SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS AND DISADVANTAGED

ENTERPRISES

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. PURPOSE

The purpose of the contract is to increase the safe use of high quality agricultural inputs in Uganda. The FTF Agricultural Inputs activity (FTF Ag-Inputs) will strengthen the agricultural inputs supply chain, decrease the prevalence of counterfeit inputs on the market, and improve current marketing and promotion techniques to engage farmers more actively and effectively.

B.2. CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Level of Effort Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Contract type. For the consideration set forth below, the Contractor shall provide the deliverables or outputs described in Section C and F, in accordance with performance standards specified in Section E.

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 $TBD.

(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 in accordance with the Limitation of Funds Clause, FAR 52.232.22

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

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) USD$ Year 1

USD$

Year 2

USD$

Year 3

USD$

Year 4

USD$

Year 5

1. Direct costs

a. Total Direct Labor

b. Travel, Transportation and Per Diem

c. Equipment and Supplies

d. Other Direct Costs

2. Indirect costs

3. Total estimated cost

4. Fixed Fee

5. Total Estimated Costs plus Fixed Fee

B.4. INDIRECT COSTS (DEC 1997)

The contract clause entitled “Allowable Cost and Payment (DEC 2002)”, FAR Subpart 52.216-7, specifies that the indirect cost rates shall be established for each of the Contractor’s accounting periods which 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 based:

Description Rate Base Type Period 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 3/

1/Base of Application Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

1/Base of Application Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

1/Base of Application Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

(1) 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.

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

B.5. 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.

[END OF SECTION B]

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 INTRODUCTION

The Problem:

Uganda has relatively low agricultural productivity for a variety of reasons. Poor agronomic practices, low quality germplasm, declining soil fertility, losses due to pests and disease, post-harvest handling practices, and market imperfections, all contribute to an agricultural system failing to meet its potential.

Uganda has the lowest rate of fertilizer application in sub-Saharan Africa, averaging less than 1.5 kilograms per hectare (compared to an average nitrogen application of 156.8 kg/ha in the US and 23.9 kg/ha in Kenya). In the past, natural soil fertility levels have been sufficient to support a relatively productive agricultural sector, but intensification of shifting agriculture (slash & burn) to support a growing population has led to soil degradation and nutrient depletion. Soil fertility is highly variable throughout Uganda, and with ongoing production will not be sufficient to support Uganda’s growing population nor plans to increase exports to support regional food security.1

Lack of high quality seed is also a limiting factor of production in Uganda. With heavy regulation from the government, all seed varieties are released through the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO). Common complaints surround the diversity and quantity of foundation seed available to the private sector. Given the strict channels for seed development and release, there is little potential for differentiation based on varieties among seed companies. Similarly, there is rarely enough foundation seed made available to produce adequate quantities for the national seed market.

This shortfall, in combination with bimodal rains and limited seed drying and storage infrastructure, leads to a chronic shortage of legitimate seeds and opens the door for opportunistic seed counterfeiters.

Only 10 years ago, Uganda had fewer than 100 input dealers. Now there is a network of over 2,500, supported by the Uganda National Agro-Dealers Association (UNADA) that provides training, material, and lobbying support for its members. Even with this dramatic increase in dealers and distributors, access to inputs is still relatively low in rural areas, representing a major challenge to increasing their use among farmers and Producer Organizations (POs).

In addition to the relatively low penetration of agro-input dealers in rural Uganda, input use is stymied by the high cost (both real and perceived) of many of these technologies. Domestic supply chain inefficiencies, poor rural infrastructure, and the high costs of transport from Mombasa2 are the main causes of Uganda paying significantly higher than world market prices. The Government of Uganda (GoU) has avoided the common pitfall of market-distorting subsidies to counter these high prices, and is committed to improving rural infrastructure, but the issue of improved supply chain and business management remains a significant hurdle to increased agro-input use.

Counterfeit inputs are widespread in Uganda (by some estimates, up to 30% of the market), leading to a lack of faith in inputs and suppliers. Falsification can take place at a number of levels, from large-scale importation of mislabeled or low quality product, to micro-level watering down of chemicals. This is true for all manner of agro-inputs: seeds, which can be grain dyed to give it the same appearance as commercial seed dressing; pesticides and herbicides, which are often mislabeled or watered down; and fertilizers, often adulterated and sold to small holders in unlabeled plastic bags.

1 IFDC estimates that up to 70kg of nitrogen is removed from the soil in the harvest from one acre of maize 2 Transport costs represent 25-35% of retail fertilizer prices in Kampala.

These corrupt marketing practices are aggravated by poor branding and low brand differentiation, the generally low capacity for regulation of imports, lack of adequate regional testing facilities, and a small cadre of inspectors.

C.2 OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of the FTF Agricultural Inputs Activity (FTF Ag-Inputs) is increased production of maize, beans, and coffee through the appropriate use of high quality agro-inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and light equipment). This will be achieved through: i) increasing the availability of inputs to farmers in FTF focus districts (see Attachment J.3); ii) decreasing the prevalence of counterfeit agricultural inputs; iii) increasing awareness of inputs, their benefits, and proper usage; and

iv) improving domestic regulatory, convening, and advocacy capacity for inputs.

Development Hypothesis: Improving the availability (physical distribution), access (affordability and quality), and utilization (knowledge of inputs and safe usage) of high quality agricultural inputs in FTF focus districts, will result in higher yields and incomes for target farmers.

C.3 BACKGROUND

Agriculture is the mainstay of the Ugandan economy, providing 14 percent (2010/11) of Gross Domestic Product, 85 percent of total export earnings, 73 percent of total employment, and the bulk of the raw materials used by the mainly agricultural-based industrial sector. 60 percent of poor households report that agriculture is their principle source of income and over 80% of the labor force is somehow involved in the sector. At the same time, average yields have been stagnant or even dropping over the last decade. Agriculture and its associated activities have the potential to lift Ugandans out of poverty, if farmers are given the tools and skills they need to take advantage of the significant opportunities on the horizon.

With the World Food Program committed to buy $100 million of maize from Ugandan farmers through the Purchase for Progress program, and an existing market demand in neighboring Kenya, Uganda is only limited by its ability to produce sufficient quantities of high quality maize. The same applies to beans, which are bought by WFP, and heavily traded both domestically and throughout the region. The currently unsated global demand for coffee is projected to outpace supply for the foreseeable future, creating a value chain portfolio that holds a great deal of potential for Ugandan food security, nutritional status, and household incomes.

C.4 PROGRAM LINKAGES

Development in Uganda is a continuum, and in program planning, one has to look at the past, present, and future. The inputs sector has benefited greatly from donor and GoU support, through projects, support to the Ministries and private sector, and favorable policy. FTF Ag-Inputs aims to build upon previous efforts and take advantage of lessons learned and best practices from Uganda and the region with a focus on long-term private sector-led sustainability. The following is a very brief synopsis of work financed by USAID and other development partners, including the GoU.

C.4.1 USAID

The Investment in Developing Export Agriculture (IDEA) project worked in three areas of input supply development. The first was to establish the Agribusiness Training and Input Network (ATAIN), laying the groundwork to build a private sector dealer network. ATAIN employed a credit guarantee scheme for inputs distributors, delivered technical and management training for rural stockists, and endeavored to stimulate demand through farmer training.

IDEA also supported a nascent private sector seed industry after GoU privatization and advocated for a codified GoU regulatory framework for the inputs sector.

Following on the work of IDEA, the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP), focused largely on POs and lead farmers for increasing input use in “mass-produced” crops (maize, banana, and rice), and lead firms for cash crops (coffee, vanilla, and sesame). These interventions were complemented by grants to seed companies, support to UNADA establish a stronger membership base, and training for rural stockists in input technologies and safe handling. To assist with challenges in financing and marketing, APEP instituted a credit guarantee for input suppliers to provide 50 percent to stockists on credit, trained loan officers at Centenary Bank to assess agricultural loan risk, and produced a monthly newsletter with input supply market information for farmers.

USAID/Uganda’s current portfolio includes a number of research activities, support to the Agribusiness Initiative (aBi) Trust, and the Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD) program.

LEAD, under a facilitative value chain-based approach, is the Mission’s current flagship agricultural program. Through its work with agrodealers, farmers, POs, traders, and exporters, LEAD has made a considerable impact, especially in the coffee sector. Having been refocused in 2011 to align with the Mission’s FTF strategy, LEAD is now using a “light touch” facilitative approach to link existing producers with input suppliers, business development services, and traders. The aBi Trust, with support from USAID and other donors in Uganda, acts as a granting mechanism to actors working in the maize, beans, coffee, horticulture, and oilseed value chains. Both of these existing programs may benefit from links with FTF Ag-Inputs, and vice versa.

Food for Peace (FFP) also has a significant presence in Uganda. Current programs work with vulnerable populations in Northern Uganda and Karamoja, with plans to transition all programs to Karamoja following the reintegration of internally displaced populations in the North. FFP works exclusively with vulnerable groups, concentrating on issues of hunger and malnutrition. Through food distribution and monetization of commodities, FFP engages in technology transfer, training, sensitization, and monitoring to address malnutrition and improve health-seeking behaviors of the targeted populations.

In addition to these existing mechanisms, the Mission will procure a number of other components under FTF that will necessitate integration with FTF Ag-Inputs3. FTF Ag-Inputs will closely coordinate with these new activities in order to ensure that the agricultural inputs sector is holistically addressed.

These include:

FTF Value Chain Activity – A value chain activity focused on FTF value chains of coffee, maize, and beans. FTF Value Chain will be a comprehensive value chain program that builds upon the work of LEAD to facilitate linkages among value chain actors. Upon completion of LEAD, FTF Value Chain will be USAID’s primary agricultural presence on ground, and thus the most important means of spurring farmer demand for agricultural inputs.

FTF Capacity Building and Enabling Environment Activities – Technical assistance to ensure more effective agricultural policy and planning, as well as FTF issue-specific advocacy, regulation, and standards.

FTF Partnership Fund – An Annual Program Statement opportunity for the development of public-private partnerships (GDA) around priority areas of the FTF initiative. The Partnership Investment Fund is a resource for private sector actors to access Global Development Alliance resources. The fund has a planned value of $16 million over five years to leverage private sector investment through partnerships with domestic and international agricultural input, agro-processing, and tourism companies. The fund’s goal is to leverage three private sector dollars, for every one dollar invested by the USG, to spur private sector interest in areas that might prove too risky or resource intensive to develop independently.

Community Connector – an integrated agriculture and nutrition activity focused on improving livelihoods of Uganda’s most vulnerable populations.

As will be outlined in Section C.6, portions of the FTF Ag-Inputs results framework integrate activities that will be covered by FTF Value Chain and the Capacity/Enabling Environment activity. Furthermore, the implementing partner for FTF Ag-Inputs will actively work towards the development of GDAs in the agricultural input sector. If and when that GDA is developed, FTF Ag-Inputs will have a central role in its implementation.

C.4.2 Other Donors

In recent years there have been several programs aimed at increasing the provision of agro-inputs, both in the public and private sector. Registered in 2003, UNADA has been the beneficiary of significant donor support through Danida, the Rockefeller Foundation, and USAID programs. This has resulted in a significant increase in the number of registered agro-input dealers throughout Uganda, and their capacity to speak with a unified voice. Significantly, UNADA lobbied the government to change the regulations for registration of input dealers, creating a country-wide system of agro-chemical safe handling courses (a prerequisite for dealer certification that was only offered in Kampala in years past).

Sasakawa Global 2000 and UNADA, underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation, worked with large input suppliers to develop input marketing systems that target small holders. These “1/4 acre packs”, containing enough improved seed and fertilizer for the typical small plot, gave farmers the peace of mind that they were getting high-quality inputs without any opportunity for adulteration along the supply chain. This was combined with a system of credit for distributors that made rural provision much more financially attractive, though all inputs were sold at unsubsidized market prices. During this program, the sector showed significant increases in the use of improved inputs, though upon its conclusion, distributors faced similar credit problems and thus the links between large scale agro-suppliers and end users evaporated.

The NGO community continues to highlight the unmet demand for agro-inputs through seed and fertilizer distribution programs, but can have a market distorting effect when providing free or highly subsidized inputs. Even when these are labeled as “inputs for work” programs, their effects represent significant setbacks to the establishment of a sustainable private sector input markets. UNADA is conscious of the unintended effects of these humanitarian programs, and actively lobbies the GoU to limit these to post-conflict zones and areas perennially affected by famine.

There have been several input promotion programs focused on returning internally displaced people and refugees in Northern Uganda. These included European Commission support to the Agricultural Livelihoods Recovery Project for Northern Uganda (ALREP), and Danish support to Refugee Hosting Areas in West Nile (DAR2) and the Restoration of Agricultural Livelihoods in Northern Uganda (RALNUC2) Programs. These programs included the institution of input voucher systems and development of new agro-dealer networks to service returnees. While input use increased in the short term, evaluations determined that long-term demand and sustainable dealer networks had not been achieved. This was influenced by a variety of factors, including delays in input distribution, limited variety, poor quality products, untrained stockists, low capacity for regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (MAAIF), counterfeit and double counting of vouchers, and the development of a black market for vouchers.

C.4.3 GoU activities and the Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP):

As part of the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Plan (CAADP), the Government of Uganda developed its own Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP).

This plan outlines the agricultural priorities of the GoU and, consistent with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action, formed the basis for USAID/Uganda’s FTF strategy.

The Mission is committed to supporting the GoU in the implementation of the DSIP, and sees the leadership of MAAIF and the Program for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) Secretariat as essential to success in the sector.

The goals of FTF Ag-Inputs fall within DSIP Program 2: Market Access and Value Addition through Sub-program 2.2: Promoting the Use of High Quality Inputs, Planting and Stocking Materials. The GoU is committed to developing a well-functioning agricultural inputs sector, and is aware of the declining soil fertility levels and prevalence of counterfeit inputs throughout the country. Close consultations with the GoU are anticipated during program design and implementation to ensure unity of purpose and avoid duplicative or contradictory efforts. Currently, the GoU supports the following programs to address issues in the inputs sector:

Certification system for agrodealers: Each agrodealer in Uganda must participate in a safe handling and use course and submit an application to the Agro Chemical Control Board (ACCB) to be “certified” as an agrodealer. Given the relatively low standards necessary for certification, UNADA in cooperation with the COMESA Regional Agro-Inputs Program (COMRAP), is considering an additional “accreditation” system. Discussions with COMRAP and the GoU are ongoing, and the scope of accreditation and its fit within the current system has yet to be defined.

NARO and the National Seed Certification Service (NSCS): All varieties in Uganda are developed, tested, and released through NARO. After a variety is ready for release, NARO produces a certain amount of foundation seed for release to the private sector seed industry.

NCSC works with these private sector dealers to ensure that they are producing high quality seed that has been approved by NARO, and certifies both seed companies and products as legitimate.

Regulation by the ACCB: ACCB is meant to act as the gatekeeper and regulator for all fertilizers and agrochemicals that enter and are used in Uganda. It also plays a role in the certification of agrodealers. ACCB is comprised of MAAIF officials, NARO and Academic representatives, and members of private sector.

Commission for Crop Protection (CCP): A branch of MAAIF, the CCP is responsible for a number of activities, including regulation of the inputs sector as it relates to crops in Uganda.

The CCP may have the highest profile of these regulatory agencies, but still lacks the capacity and manpower to consistently police the national inputs industry.

National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS): As the primary public sector provider of agricultural extension services, NAADS is an important player in the promotion, dissemination, and regulation of inputs. NAADS is uniquely placed to have an impact on the sector with its national presence and existing relationships with farming communities. While it has been used as a political tool, and criticized for lacking effectiveness and transparency, NAADS (or any future incarnation of the national extension system) will be an essential partner in the inputs sector.

MAAIF, under new leadership and new support from the World Bank and other donors, has recommitted itself to agro-inputs. The Ministry has acknowledged the scale of the problem and is establishing technical teams to address the issues. There are a number of interventions that have been discussed in government circles, most of which are still in nascent stages of development. While these proposed programs are currently only being discussed by the GoU, their potential impact on the FTF Ag-Inputs program should be considered. Recent proposals have included:

Multidisciplinary technical teams to focus on problems that span the authorities of different MAAIF offices or other ministries. Currently, the plan is to develop separate teams to address the seed, fertilizer, and agrochemical industries;

Government involvement in the bulk-buying of fertilizers to create economies of scale and reduce transaction costs of private sector importers; and

Government involvement in the production of commercial seed to address the chronic shortfall in Uganda. Land held by NARO and the Prisons Department is being considered for seed production, as well as a prison-based labor force.

C.5 RELATIONSHIP TO USAID/UGANDA’S CDCS & FTF STRATEGIES

FTF Ag-Inputs will contribute to USAID/Uganda’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) through Intermediate Result 1.1: “Increased incomes led by strategic value chains in selected populations” and Sub-Intermediate Result 1.1.3: “Technology Development, Dissemination, Management, and Innovation Enhanced.” In concert with improved post-harvest handling techniques and market development activities, the use of improved agro-inputs represents a significant opportunity to boost commodity production and increase incomes of targeted farmers. In a complex system that is being affected by many different actors, coordination and communication with other USAID, donor, and GoU programs will be an essential component to FTF Ag-Inputs.

USAID/Uganda’s FTF multi-year strategy represents a significant commitment to advancing the goals set forth by the GoU in the DSIP and National Development Plans. The FTF strategy aims to support a strategic value chain approach to agricultural development in Uganda; focus and concentrate limited resources on targeted geographic areas and commodities; address agriculture and nutrition in an integrated manner; and advance the Agency’s USAID Forward agenda. FTF Ag-Inputs will contribute to each of these by coordinating with other USAID programs working along the value chain, supporting value chain actors working in targeted commodities in FTF focus districts, and working with local partners to build their capacity in business, financial, and project management.

FTF Ag-Inputs will be one component of USAID/Uganda’s FTF portfolio. With policy, research, value chain, investment, nutrition, and capacity building programs, it will address issues that have been identified as key bottlenecks to the growth of Uganda’s agricultural sector. Strong program linkages between USAID programs, including methods for collaboration, communication, targeting beneficiaries, and Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) will be critical to the success of the entire portfolio.

C.6 OUTPUTS/RESULTS

The project purpose of FTF Ag-Inputs - Increased use of high quality agricultural inputs in Uganda - will be achieved through four intermediate results (IRs):

C.6.1 IR1: Increased availability of high quality inputs to farmers in focus districts

Sub IR1.1: Improved reliability, efficiency, and service of the Ag-inputs supply chain through greater integration and formalized relationships along the inputs supply chain.

Problem: Uganda’s inputs sector is highly fragmented. Importers, buying in relatively small volumes by global standards, have loose relationships with their international suppliers, input distributors have loose relationships with importers, agrodealers and agents tend to have loose relationships with distributors, and farmers have loose relationships with agrodealers. This results in an inefficient system with rent seekers along the supply chain and a low degree of marketing, supply, and quality control.

With few exceptions, each actor functions at their level of the supply chain with very little vertical integration or formalized long term relationships.

The limited capacity of agrodealers to provide timely, accurate information and appropriate high-quality inputs consistently hampers their ability to show value for money and market inputs. Dealers often share similar characteristics as their trader counterparts, showing up once a season with a truck to do business with a captive rural audience. These dealers provide little to no extension advice or information beyond simplistic and often inaccurate application recommendations. Few traders make the commitment to provide consistent season-long service year in and year out, resulting in inconsistencies in message, lack of trust, poor service, and low customer satisfaction.

As the primary point of central government contact with rural farmers, NAADS has often failed to provide relevant, timely information and create linkages between farmers and agrodealers. The potential role of NAADS is significant, and must be considered when evaluating the inputs sector.

Target Populations: Input importers (suppliers), distributors, and agrodealers/agents, ultimately improving the price and quality of product and service to farmers in the focus districts.

Illustrative Activities: Provide proof of profitability and technical assistance for greater supply chain integration to actors at every level of the input supply chain. Develop the extension skills and customer service capabilities of targeted service providers. As the primary point of contact for farmers, the development of agrodealer-farmer relationships and improving the level of customer service is essential to increased input use and the success of the agrodealership. Relationship building, supply management, and product fidelity are key aspects that should translate into economic incentives for value chain actors.

Sub IR1.2: Increased quantity and quality of marketing to farmers to increase access and spur farmer demand for high quality inputs.

Problem: In addition to being highly fragmented, the inputs sector largely lacks the type of promotion and marketing associated with a well-functioning sales-driven industry. Farmers are generally not seen as a consistent and discriminating customer base, and thus not provided with the type of high quality services that might attract repeat business.

Brand loyalty is very low due to inconsistent supplies and the proliferation of counterfeit products.

Farmers, agrodealers, and regulators share a portion of the blame for the current state of the sector, and there is hesitation on both sides to take the first step. Agrodealers do not see levels of demand that warrant active marketing strategies, and farmers do not have access to adequate quantities of high quality branded inputs or the assets to buy them in sufficient quantities. All of this persists in areas where other branded consumer goods are readily available.

Target Populations: Farmers and input supply chain participants (see Figure C.1 Agro Inputs Supply Chain).

Figure C.1 Agro Inputs Supply Chain

Illustrative Activities: Employing strategies that have worked in similar rural contexts, engage in the development of innovative marketing strategies with private sector partners ranging from national scale importers/suppliers to points of contact with farmers.

Sub IR 1.3: Increased awareness of nutrient depletion, saved-seed degradation, and the potential of improved inputs to address these issues on a national and local level (achieved by increased promotion).

Problem: One of the greatest barriers to the adoption of improved inputs is the common misconception in Uganda that the soils and planting materials are of a very high quality and fertility. While this may have been the case in the past, years of production with little nutrient replenishment or time left fallow, have left many soils highly degraded. Saved seeds and other planting materials often lose their potency or become vulnerable to disease. Uganda has one of the lowest fertilizer application and improved seed usage rates in the world, and current rates of production are largely due to increasing acreage and bimodal rains, rather than intensification of production. Changing these perceptions amongst both producers and policy makers is a challenge that must be addressed in order to achieve food security in Uganda and the region.

The private and public sector both have a role to play in spreading information and illustrating alternatives. Farmers need to understand the economics and agronomics of improved inputs and see tangible immediate and long term value in their use. A united front of input regulators, NAADS, and private sector input and business development service providers can provide this type of information, but thus far have failed to do so with unity, evidence, and the level of service that farmers require to make informed decisions. As cited in recent reports, there is simply a lack of data and contextualized analysis on input use and economic benefit that can be presented as evidence to incentivize farmers or inform decision making.

Target Populations: Farmers, input supply chain participants (see Figure C.1 Agro Inputs Supply Chain), and policy makers.

Illustrative Activities: Develop evidence base and campaigns to provide information on soil degradation and management, promote individual brands or the sector as a whole, or introduce the e-verification system to increase awareness, use, and trust in agricultural inputs.

Sub IR 1.4: Increased capacity of domestic agricultural inputs associations to regulate, convene, and advocate for their members.

Problem: While the number and capacity of domestic input associations (UNADA, USTA, Croplife, & UFA) has grown in recent years, they often lack the ability to speak with a unified voice, advocate with government institutions and regulatory bodies, and define clear achievable priorities that will benefit their members. The inception of three additional industry associations, complementing UNADA, has also led to a degree of fragmentation. While the fertilizer, pesticide, and seed industries have their own specific issues to address, they often share distribution channels and the associated challenges, and may benefit from UNADA’s potential role as an umbrella-organization.

Input associations run on contributions from their members, and are expected to deliver certain benefits in return. Dues collection is poor, with little revenue to support the sector organizations, as are the tangible benefits that are provided to members. Most activities, including member trainings, industry advocacy, and association-based promotion and marketing are very limited and only initiated through project-based outside initiatives. At the same time, internal capacity for financial management, data collection, and record keeping at these organizations is underdeveloped.

Target Populations: Domestic input associations and their members.

Illustrative Activities: Increase the percentage of dues-paying association members and increase the capacity of associations to show real value for money in membership. Build the ability of associations to serve as a repository for input use and profitability data in line with MAAIF.

C.6.2 IR2: Decreased prevalence of counterfeit agricultural inputs

Sub IR 2.1: Decreased prevalence of counterfeit inputs through supporting the development and promotion of an accessible e-verification system.

Problem: Uganda has a high prevalence of counterfeit inputs which has greatly affected farmers’ confidence in the sector, and thus their willingness to invest in inputs. Products range from benign fake or watered down genuine materials to banned substances that are harmful to crop and human health.

Counterfeiters have become increasingly innovative in their techniques, making it nearly impossible to identify their products without laboratory tests. The National Seed Certification Service and Agro Chemical Control Board have limited capacity for regulation and enforcement, leaving a vacuum where both agrodealers and farmers are unwittingly cheated.

Farmers and agrodealers have little means of verifying whether a product is genuine, unexpired, priced fairly, or its brand, type, or concentration. Regional pilots based on models from the global pharmaceutical industry have shown promise, but few have achieved scale, accessibility of sufficient accurate information, and sustainability. USAID/Uganda is aware of at least two independent systems being piloted for subsectors of the Ugandan inputs industry (seeds & agrochemicals).

Target Populations: Farmers and input supply chain participants (see Figure C.1 Agro Inputs Supply Chain).

Illustrative Activities: Support the development, regulation, and management infrastructure for an electronic verification system for agricultural inputs. The system shall be accessible and affordable to small scale agrodealers and farmers that are most vulnerable to the effects of counterfeits, but should be relevant and useful to other supply chain actors.

Given the existing infrastructure, technical expertise, lines of authority, and potential for cost savings, it is the Mission’s preference that the Contractor develops a partnership with a private sector entity in the Ugandan inputs sector for this area of implementation. Consultations with the developers of the aforementioned verification systems will be essential, as will communications with relevant GoU authorities and private sector partners, given the potential amendments to input packaging and interests of various regulatory authorities. The Contractor shall provide a detailed exit strategy and plan for the long term economic and functional sustainability of the system.

Sub IR…