SOL-617-17-000026-OVC_EVALUATION.pdf

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

USAID /UGANDA

PLOT 1577 GGABA ROAD

KAMPALA, UGANDA

Email: KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER RATING PAGE OF

PAGES

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)100

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 617 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

USAID/UGANDA

PLOT 1577 GGABA ROAD

KAMPALA, UGANDA

Email: KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

(If other than Item 7)

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

9. Sealed offers in original and _Electronic only___ 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 n/a until (see Cover Letter and section L.7 for date and time) (EDT Washington DC) 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.

6628 KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

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 __250______ 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 OFFER 15A. 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 REF SECTION G.5

(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 BY

CODE

SEE SECTION G.2

CODE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

ADMIR SERIFOVIC

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:

Janepher Nabitosi

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-617-17-000026 REQ-617-17-000072

X

See Attached Table of Contents mailto:KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov mailto:KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

Request for Proposal No: SOL-617-17-000026

Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s programming for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) activities

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1 PURPOSE

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

B.3 FIXED PRICE

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

B.6 COST REIMBURSABLE

B.7 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

B.8 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

D.2 BRANDING AND MARKING POLICY

D.3 BRANDING STRATEGY

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 SCHEDULE OF REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES

F.6 FINAL REPORT FORMAT

F.7 CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT

F.8 OTHER REQUIREMENTS

F.9 KEY PERSONNEL

F.10 TECHNICAL APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS

F.11 AIDAR 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTS

(SEPTEMBER 2013)

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

G.7 CONTRACTOR’S PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

H.2 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES (JAN 2002)

H.3 DEFENSE BASE ACT (DBA) INSURANCE FOR 2015-2020

H.4 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

H.5 LOGISTIC SUPPORT

H.6 CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT

H.7 REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES (JULY 2007)

H.8 USAID DISABILITY POLICY (DEC 2004)

H.9 AIDAR 752.245-71 TITLE TO AND CARE OF PROPERTY (APR 1984)

H.10 AIDAR 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007)

H.11 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT

H.12 MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

H.13 VALUE ADDED TAX AND CUSTOMS DUTIES

H.14 AIDAR 752.7032 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (APR

2014) 41

H.15 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

H.16 EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS AND COOPERATING COUNTRY

NATIONALS

H.17 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MANAGEMENT

H.18 AIDAR 752.7038 “NONDISCRIMINATION AGAINST END-USERS OF SUPPLIES ORSERVICES” (OCT 2016)

H.19 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS SYSTEM

H.20 BUSINESS CLASS TRAVEL

H.21 USAID IMPLEMENTING PARTNER NOTICES (IPN) PORTAL FOR ACQUISITION (JULY 2014)

H.22 USAID-FINANCED THIRD-PARTY WEB SITES (AUGUST 2013)

H.23 CONFERENCE PLANNING AND REQUIRED APPROVALS (AUGUST 2013)

H.24 SUBMISSION OF DATASETS TO THE DEVELOPMENT DATA LIBRARY (DDL) (OCTOBER 2014)

H.25 AIDAR 752.231-71 SALARY SUPPLEMENTS FOR HG EMPLOYEES (MARCH 2015)

H.26 ALLOWABLE USG FUNDING SUPPORT FOR GOU ENTITIES AND STAFF

H.27 CLOUD COMPUTING (MAY 2016)

H.28 302.3.5.16(A)(1) CONSCIENCE CLAUSE IMPLEMENTATION (ACQUISITION) –SOLICITATION

PROVISION (FEBRUARY 2012)

H.29 “302.3.5.16(A)(3) CONDOMS (ACQUISITION) (SEPTEMBER 2014)

H.30 “302.3.5.16(A)(4) PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OR ADVOCACY OF THE LEGALIZATION OR

PRACTICE OF PROSTITUTION OR SEX TRAFFICKING (SEPTEMBER 2014)

H.31 752.7037 CHILD SAFEGUARDING STANDARDS (AUG 2016)

H.32 MEDICAL EVACUATION (MEDEVAC) SERVICES (JUL 2007)

H.33 AIDAR 752.225-70 SOURCE AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012)

H.34 MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR “PEPFAR” PROGRAM

EXPENDITURES

H.35 ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (EIT) ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS COMPLIANCE

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

I.2 FAR 52.216-24 LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT LIABILITY (APR 1984)

I.3 FAR 52.203-13 CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (OCT 2015)

I.4 AIDAR 752.242-70 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS (OCT 2007)

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND REFERENCED BY LINK

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 FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (JAN 2017)

K.3 INSURANCE - IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY

K.4 FAR 52.204-3 TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION (OCT 1998)

K.5 FAR 52.209-2 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH INVERTED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS—

REPRESENTATION (NOV 2015)

K.6 FAR 52.209-5 CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (OCT 2015)

K.7 FAR 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JUL 2013)

K.8 FAR 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION (OCTOBER 2015) K.9 FAR 52.230-7 PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE--COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CHANGES (APR 2005)

K.10 COMPLIANCE WITH VETERANS EMPLOYMENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

K.11 REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATIONS REGARDING DELINQUENT TAX LIABILITY OR A FELONY

CONVICTION UNDER ANY FEDERAL LAW (FEB 2016)

K.12 FAR 52.203-98, PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH ENTITIES THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN

INTERNAL CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS -REPRESENTATION (APR 2015)

K.13 FAR 52.215-6 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (OCT 1997)

K.14 FAR 52.222-56 CERTIFICATION REGARDING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS COMPLIANCE PLAN (MAR

2015) 81

K.15 FAR 52.204-20 PREDECESSOR OF OFFEROR (JULY 2016)

K.16 SIGNATURE

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

L.2 FAR 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

L.3 FAR 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEPT 2006)

L.4 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

L.5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.6 SUBMISSION/DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

L.8 COST PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

L.9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF BRANDING AND MARKING PLANS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

M.2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.3 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.4 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE AND CONTRACT AWARD

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION

M.6 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 this evaluation is to provide rigorous evidence regarding the extent to which participation in USAID/Uganda’s Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) program has reduced household vulnerability and improved OVC well-being and to identify factors or combinations of factors, within and outside the program, which may explain how results were achieved or what barriers may have prevented greater success. The results from the final performance evaluation of

SOCY and BOCY and outcome end-line of SOCY (discussed in under SOCY-specific considerations) will inform future programing in Uganda and elsewhere, especially as it relates to the case-management and graduation models utilized by the activities.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.202-

2(a) (b) and (c). For the consideration set forth in this Section B, the Contractor must provide the deliverables or outputs described in Sections C and F, in accordance with performance standards specified in Section E.

B.3 FIXED PRICE

(a) Total fixed price for performance of the work required hereunder is [$TBD].

B.4 BUDGET

CLIN Item Amount $ Contract Period (Years 1 –

3)

001 Direct Costs $TBD

003 Subcontracts $TBD

004 Indirect Costs $TBD

Total Estimated Cost $TBD

005 Fee-Profit $TBD

Total Estimated Firm Fixed Price $TBD

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

The Contractor is authorized to recover applicable indirect costs, if it is part of the contractor's usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31, and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

(NICRA).

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

Description Rate Base Type Period

TBD 1/ 1/ 1/

Base of Application: TBD

Type of Rate: TBD

Period: TBD

Source: TBD

(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 require the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

B.6 COST REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable will be limited to reasonable, allocable and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (June 2013), FAR

52.216-8, Fixed Fee (June 2011), if applicable, and AIDAR 752.7003, “Documentation for

Payment”.

B.7 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

Payment of fixed fee will be in accordance with FAR 52.216-8.

B.8 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

All contract CLINs under this award are considered non-severable and constitute a multi-year contract as defined in FAR 17.103. Therefore, this contract is subject to the requirements of FAR

17.106. In the event that the Government cancels requirements for services in subsequent program years under this contract, the following conditions will apply: [Amount and dates to be filled in at time of award]

Cancellation Dates:

Contract Year 1: DATE TBD, 2018 Amount: $___TBD___

Contract Year 2: DATE TBD, 2019 Amount: $___TBD___

Contract Year 3: DATE TBD, 2020 Amount: $___TBD___

Cancellation Ceiling:

Contract will be cancelled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2, “Cancellation under Multiyear

Contracts (October 1997).” The cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is indicated above.

[END OF SECTION B]

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 BACKGROUND

Uganda currently has the second youngest population in the world and is the third fastest growing nation in Africa. Deep and extensive vulnerabilities exist that especially affect children; 96% of children are considered vulnerable, over half of those at critical and moderate levels. Vulnerabilities take different forms, including poverty, malnutrition, and exposure to violence. Low levels of education and high prevalence of HIV/AIDS among children themselves as well as within their families exacerbate these vulnerabilities.

USAID/Uganda’s programming for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) employs an integrated approach to address these factors. Two regional activities started in 2015 and will cover 39 districts across Uganda. The Better Outcomes for Children and Youth (BOCY) and Sustainable Outcomes for Children and Youth (SOCY) programs aim to economically empower children, youth, and their caregivers to access core services, strengthen systems to provide core services, and improve coordination of community-based clinical and socio-economic services for efficiency and effectiveness along the continuum of care. This work is carried out in support of and in partnership with the Ugandan Ministry of Gender, Labor, and Social Development (MGSLD).

USAID/Uganda seeks support for a Performance Evaluation of SOCY and BOCY.

Summary of the OVC Programs to be Evaluated

1. Better Outcomes for Children and Youth (BOCY)

The Better Outcomes for Children and Youth (BOCY) activity is implemented by a consortium of five partners: World Education Inc./Batswana (WEI/B) as the prime implementing partner; Mercy

Corps; Uganda Women’s Efforts to Save Orphans (UWESO); Youth, Alive; and Friends of Christ

Revival (FOC-REV). Each partner is responsible for specific technical aspects of the activity.

WEI/B also provides sub-grants to local implementing partners

Activity Name Better Outcomes for Children and Youth (BOCY)

Implementer World Education Inc./Batwana (WEI/B)

Life of Activity April 2015 – March 2020

Active Geographic Regions 20 districts in Northern and Eastern Uganda

USAID Office Education, Youth, and Childhood Development

2. Sustainable Outcomes for Children and Youth (SOCY)

The Sustainable Outcomes for Children and Youth (SOCY) is implemented by Catholic Relief

Services (CRS) in partnership with a consortium of organizations, including Action for Community

Development (ACODEV), African Network for Prevention and Protection against Child Abuse and

Neglect (ANPPCAN), TPO Uganda, and Palladium (formerly Futures Group).

Activity Name Sustainable Outcomes for Children and Youth (SOCY)

Implementer Catholic Relief Services (CRS)

Life of Activity April 2015 – April 2020

Active Geographic Regions 19 districts in Central and Western Uganda

USAID Office Education, Youth, and Childhood Development

Development Hypothesis and Theory of Change

Both BOCY and SOCY were designed following the same Theory of Change and are implemented according to similar models, aiming to address multiple forms of vulnerability among children and youth through an integrated, comprehensive approach as per Figure: 1 below.

Figure 1: BOCY and SOCY Results Framework

Specifically, BOCY and SOCY economically empower orphaned and vulnerable children, youth, and their caregivers to access core services (Result 1); strengthen local government, CSOs, and informal community structures to increase and improve core services for orphaned and vulnerable children, youth, and their caregivers (Result 2); and, improve coordination of community-based clinical and socio-economic services for efficiency and effectiveness along the continuum of care

(Result 3).

The Development Hypothesis states that if local governments and CSOs increase and improve core services for OVC, youth and their caregivers, and community-based clinical and socio-economic services become more responsive and collaborate more effectively, then an enhanced, social support system will develop through which OVC, youth, and households will access core services for improving health, nutrition, education, and psychosocial well-being and reducing abuse, exploitation and neglect.

Overview of Interventions

The selection of participant households for both BOCY and SOCY occurs in several stages, beginning with identification of potentially vulnerable households and the application of the

MGLSD-approved Household Vulnerability Prioritization Tool (HVPT). For those who are classified as vulnerable, a second assessment using the Household Vulnerability Assessment Tool

(HVAT) informs the development of a household profile and tailored action plan for referrals and interventions.

Interventions in the three result areas are highly integrated and designed to be mutually supporting.

Critical assumptions are that a) there are sufficient quality health and education services available for referrals; b) that HIV/AIDS services are available to beneficiaries through other development partners; and, c) that local governments have adequate staff to support supervise and ensure quality of services to vulnerable children by service providers.

Economic empowerment interventions (Result 1):

Economic empowerment interventions revolve around the formation of community-based savings groups. These groups meet regularly. In addition to opportunities to save, they also provide a platform for trainings and dialogues on different topics, including financial education, parenting, and gender roles and decision-making in the family. BOCY and SOCY also work with the private sector to link households and youths to markets and internship or apprenticeship opportunities.

Households that do not have the means to participate in a savings group are linked to temporary consumption and cash transfer opportunities.

System strengthening interventions (Result 2):

System strengthening interventions include support to district and sub-county OVC coordination committees (DOVCCs and SOVCCs) to develop operational plans, undertake support supervision, monitor and assess OVC program performance, carry out quality assessments and support supervision, data analysis, dissemination and advocacy. In addition, system strengthening interventions focus on optimal utilization of available resources for OVC services within local government, CSOs and informal community structures, tracking staffing levels and training para-social workers, and support for the use of data. Interventions also aim to improve the functioning of the referral network, increase utilization of core services, and expand the case management approach to build long term sustainability. Through enhanced coordination, user-friendly directories, effective follow-up mechanisms and improved service provider capacities, OVC and caregivers who access one key core service are linked to multiple core services that pave the way to sustained health outcomes and graduation from social assistance.

Case management and household action plans (Result 3):

Para-social workers are trained to conduct case management and supervise the implementation of household action plans, including linkages to other services such as referrals to health centers, police, or counseling services as necessary. Households are expected to graduate out of vulnerability within one or two years, but may be supported for up to three years.

Status of Implementation

BOCY is intended to operate in 20 districts in Eastern and Northern Uganda (Attachment J.1).

These districts were identified by USAID based on high prevalence rates of HIV and availability of trained community workers to deliver program services. All interventions have begun to roll out as a package in the majority of the initial 13 districts; additional beneficiaries are enrolled each year.

SOCY is intended to operate in 19 districts in Western and Central Uganda (Attachment J.1). These districts were identified by USAID due to high prevalence rates of HIV and availability of trained community workers to deliver program services. System strengthening interventions under Result 2 have been rolled out in all current target communities since October 2015. Household level interventions (Result 1 and Result 3) have been introduced in 25% of those communities in May

2016, additional households have been enrolled in November 2016, and the remaining households are envisioned to be enrolled in November 2017.

C.2 EVALUATION OBJECTIVE AND OUTCOMES

The purpose of the OVC Evaluation activity is to provide rigorous evidence regarding the extent to which participation in the program has reduced household vulnerability and improved OVC well-being and to identify factors or combinations of factors, within and outside the program, which may explain how results were achieved or what barriers may have prevented greater success. This evidence will be used to inform decisions about future efforts to support OVC in Uganda and elsewhere.

For both activities, the offeror will examine results according to the following outcomes of interest:

1) The financial self-sufficiency of a household in terms of their ability to meet basic needs of children in their care, including nutrition needs, school attendance, children's psychosocial wellbeing, as well as economic resilience to shocks, such as unexpected medical expenses and others.

2) Adequate functioning and/or sufficiency of formal and informal systems and reporting, for example through case follow-up and capacity of service officers.

3) Functioning of case management and referral systems.

The Offeror will provide technical, management and logistical support to achieve the above stated objectives.

C.3 SCOPE OF WORK

For both activities, the evaluation will assess achievement of objectives and will complement these findings using a mixed-methods approach in order to provide additional data on how and why objectives are or are not being achieved. It will provide feedback to the Mission and programs and will include external reviews of data quality of the two activities.

The Offeror is expected to propose a mixed-method approach to answering the cross-cutting SOCY and BOCY performance related learning priorities in C.3.0 below.

C.3.0 EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Question 1: To what extent are processes in place to facilitate long-term success of program interventions beyond the program’s end? What factors may prevent long-term success?

Question 2: What coordination and management mechanisms (e.g., structures, operational guidelines and frameworks or forums) have worked best to support the integrated OVC implementation approach? What enabling factors do these mechanisms engage with?

Question 3: Do households or individuals with specific characteristics (e.g., individuals with disabilities, single-parent households, regional variation, etc.) progress and graduate at different rates and if so, why?

Question 4: To what extent do females and males experience different benefits from the program?

Are there unintended results for either group?

Question 5: How cost effective are different pathways to change – how do interventions or combinations of interventions compare regarding impact and cost?

C.3.1 EVALUATION DESIGN

The offeror is expected to propose a design that:

1) Combines quantitative and qualitative methods as appropriate in order to answer the final questions.

2) Compares and contrasts findings from SOCY and BOCY to produce actionable conclusions and recommendations.

3) Uses representative samples that permit conclusions about program achievements to be made with confidence, including disaggregation by sex, disability and vulnerability status, single- vs.

two-parent household, district, and possibly other beneficiary characteristics.

C.3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation final report will synthesize findings across SOCY and BOCY and present cross-cutting findings, conclusions, and recommendations from all data streams available (e.g., baseline data, SOCY-specific effectiveness measures, and additional quantitative and qualitative findings from the performance evaluation).

SOCY-Specific Considerations

Prior to this solicitation, the SOCY activity was selected to integrate a comparison (control) group into its roll-out procedures. The evaluation team will therefore build on this opportunity to measure the effectiveness of the program. Additional questions for SOCY are therefore prioritized in conjunction with the larger performance evaluation effort for both SOCY and BOCY. Baseline data was collected in November 2016 (report provided as an annex to this solicitation). The evaluator is expected to use the baseline data generated and follow the original design, though some adjustments may be necessary to adequately respond to this solicitation. The evaluation will use a longitudinal, Difference-in-Differences design (barring a well-reasoned and feasible adaptation), combined with

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to assess the relationships between explanatory variables in a structured fashion. These groups are selected from Cohorts 2 and 3, respectively. Data will be collected again in the fall of 2017(under a pre-existing mechanism, not expected as part of this solicitation) to align with roll-out of interventions to Cohort 3 households. At least one more round of data collection will take place to establish an end-line in or around November/December 2019, which is the subject of this solicitation, along with the subsequent analysis required to develop a final report. It is up to the offeror to determine if it would be feasible and useful to conduct additional data collection in between, e.g. in 2018

SOCY-specific components of the Offeror’s proposal will address the following learning priorities.

Questions will be finalized in collaboration between USAID, SOCY, and the evaluation team.

SOCY 1: Does participation in activities under Results 1 and 3 contribute to a reduction in household vulnerability and improve OVC well-being?

SOCY 2: Does participation in activities under Result 1 contribute to a reduction in household vulnerability and improve OVC well-being?

SOCY 3: Do the combined activities under Results 1, 2 and 3 contribute to progress in the following priority HIV indicators?

a) Percent of participants with known HIV status, disaggregated by caregivers and children.

b) Percent of HIV positive participants linked to treatment.

c) Percent of HIV positive participants adhering to treatment.

d) Percent of HIV positive participants virally suppressed.

e) Percent of HIV exposed infants who seroconvert.

Table 1 summarizes which comparisons between different groups of beneficiaries can be used to answer the evaluation questions.

Table 1: Evaluation questions and beneficiary groups

Question Group 1 Group 2

SOCY 1

Cohort 2 sub-counties (i.e. beneficiaries receiving Result 1 and 3 in addition to Result

2 interventions)

Cohort 3 sub-counties (i.e.

beneficiaries not receiving Result 1 and 3 in addition to Result 2 interventions until the end of 2017)

SOCY 2

Savings group members (i.e. beneficiaries receiving Result 1 in addition to Result 2 and

3 interventions)

Non-savings group members (i.e.

beneficiaries receiving only Result 2 and 3 interventions)

SOCY 3 SOCY sub-counties (i.e. beneficiaries Non-SOCY sub-counties (subject to

Question Group 1 Group 2 receiving Result 1, 2, and 3 interventions) availability of data)

For background, the Result 1 interventions are mostly tied to participation in a savings group and building economic resilience. Result 2 is concerned with improving core services and is rolled out everywhere. Result 3 is concerned with coordination and systems strengthening between clinical and social service providers.

The primary outcome measure for the SOCY evaluation is household vulnerability status. The measurement tools used for the baseline are based on the Household Vulnerability Assessment Tool

(HVAT) and Household Vulnerability Prioritization Tool (HVPT), which measure vulnerability across economic, food security, nutrition, health, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), shelter, education, psychosocial support, and child protection dimensions, and yields a composite score corresponding to “not vulnerable”, “slightly”, “moderately”, and “critically” vulnerable categories.

The HVAT contains modules administered individually to caregivers, children aged 0-9, and youth aged 10-17. Additionally, nine secondary outcome measures derived from PEPFAR’s MER

Essential Survey Indicators for OVC Programs were included in the baseline and should be followed in the mid- and end-line. To the extent possible, data collection tools utilized to collect baseline data should be maintained to ensure comparability of mid- and end-line with baseline data.

However, the contractor will rigorously review the tools and suggest revisions if necessary to increase rigor and integrity of the study. USAID will review any suggested modifications to instruments and make final determinations on format and content. Power calculations for the baseline resulted in a total sample size of 2,436 observations distributed evenly across the different beneficiary groups, i.e. 812 households per group.

Within the SOCY outcome evaluation end line, QCA will be used to assess the relationship between explanatory variables and outcomes. Specifically, QCA should be used to assess the following learning priorities:

QCA1: Where applicable, what combinations of factors best explain how SOCY reduced household vulnerability and improved OVC/Youth outcomes?

QCA2: Where applicable, what combinations of factors explain why SOCY did NOT reduce household vulnerability or improve OVC/Youth outcomes?

QCA3: What external factors, especially additional services provided as the result of SOCY’s efforts to improve the referral system, are relevant for reducing household vulnerability and improving OVC/Youth outcomes?

QCA4: Which activities implemented under SOCY may not be relevant for reducing household vulnerability and improving OVC/Youth outcomes? Why?

QCA5: Where applicable, how did households and OVC/Youth outcomes improve in sub-counties where SOCY did not (yet) implement R1 and R3 activities?

QCA6: What are the key factors that explain how HIV prevalence and incidence rates have declined or not declined in SOCY sub-counties relative to sub-counties outside of the program (subject to availability of data)?

Though the general SOCY-specific outcome evaluation design is finalized, the evaluator is encouraged to critically review it and suggest adjustments that may support the objectives of the evaluation, while recognizing the available baseline data.

Use of existing data

The evaluator will review information available through BOCY and SOCY’s own data collection efforts, including vulnerability assessments and performance monitoring data, as well as other existing data sources, and utilize available data where possible. In addition to the baseline study described above, BOCY and SOCY have both conducted their own baseline survey to establish pre-intervention conditions to inform the development of interventions and provide a basis for project and outcome monitoring indicators. In addition, an external firm is conducting outcome monitoring of the essential PEPFAR MER indicators in year one, three and year five of program implementation. It is the evaluator’s responsibility to identify and utilize other data sources as appropriate. USAID is available to help attain additional information

C.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1) Place of Performance

Offeror’s place of performance will be principally in Uganda more specifically at the field sites that host scope activities (see Attachment J.1: BOCY and SOCY districts)

2) USAID Evaluation Policy

The Offeror must ensure that the Evaluation follows the USAID Evaluation Policy requirements for rigorous evaluations.

3) Data Quality Standards

The Offeror must ensure that the evaluation adheres to USAID’s requirements for data quality.

USAID data quality standards are detailed in the Automated Directives System (ADS), see ADS

203.3.5.1.

4) Consultation with Key Stakeholders

The Offeror will consult with key education, social service, health, and civil society stakeholders throughout the evaluation process and create opportunities for input and information sharing.

Primary stakeholders may include the Ministry of Gender Labor and Social Development

(MGLSD), local institutions, civil society, and other donors. Transparent and consistent communication with key stakeholders will be critical for building interest and momentum around the evaluation findings to ignite higher-level policy changes and inform GOU and donor resource allocation decision-making. USAID/Uganda will provide a list of key stakeholders with contact information to the evaluator prior to the commencement of the evaluation.

5) Disability

The Offeror must take into consideration beneficiaries with special needs or learning disabilities and make provisions to enable them to access assessment materials, venues, or other dissemination products developed under this contract, to the extent possible. The nature of the SOCY and BOCY activities specifically targets households, children, and care givers that are vulnerable; therefore, all due sensitivity to the situation and status of vulnerable and marginalized groups is expected by the evaluators.

6) Ethical Considerations in Research

The Offeror is expected to follow best practices in research including human subjects, in line with the Common Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects in Research (the “Common Rule”) – see 22 CFR part 225 – and the USAID guidance on Protection of Human Subjects in Research

Supported by USAID: A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201:(1) Review of the research by a properly constituted ethical committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB); (2) A meaningful assessment of risks and benefits by the IRB; and (3) A meaningful informed consent procedure for research participants. Further, this must include a follow-up plan for cases of abuse or neglect that may be uncovered through the research.

7) Anti-Corruption and Fraud

In order to support the Mission’s efforts in fighting corruption and fraud, the contractor will demonstrate effective internal control measures that ensure rational use of USG funds and other public resources. In addition, the contractor will demonstrate that its governance policies and procedures engender transparency, participation and periodic self-assessments. These procedures will be consistent with best practices within the donor community to minimize corruption. The interventions aimed at supporting the strengthening of the national M&E/MIS systems will be subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as those aimed at supporting USG.

C.5 COLLABORATING, LEARNING AND ADAPTING (CLA)

Development work presents many opportunities to collaborate and engage with a broad set of stakeholders, to learn from both evidence and experience and to adapt iteratively to unexpected results or changes in context. This is why USAID places “Collaborating, Learning and Adapting” at the center of its Program Cycle, both as a connector between, and an integrated part of the components.

C.5.0 Collaborating

Collaboration enables cross-sector integration, convergence, and effective interventions to maximize development resources and enhance development results. The Contractor shall collaborate with USAID-supported activities in common regions of operation and engage with stakeholders (defined collaboratively with USAID COR) to deliver integrated services to target populations.

C.5.1 Learning

Learning is intentional, systematic and resourced. Sources for learning include data from monitoring, portfolio reviews, findings of research, evaluations, analyses conducted by USAID or third parties, knowledge gained from experience, stocktaking exercises, and other sources. Those documents produced by USAID will be shared with the Contractor by the COR for consideration in the learning phase of CLA.

These sources shall be used to develop and implement plans, manage adaptively, and contribute to the USAID/Uganda knowledge base in order to improve development outcomes. A collaborating, learning, and adapting focus helps to ensure that programming is coordinated, grounded in evidence, and adjusted as necessary to remain relevant and effective throughout implementation.

Knowledge generated by learning shall be applied throughout programming to implementation approaches, processes, and stakeholder engagement. Knowledge generated by learning should also be disseminated to activity stakeholders, partners, and collaborators in an appropriate forum and format so that it may be translated into decisions and actions that enhance the success of approaches and interventions designed to achieve common intermediate results.

The Contractor shall share information and knowledge generated by monitoring data, portfolio review results, research findings, evaluations, analyses, and experiences with other USAID implementing partners. The Contractor will apply actionable information and knowledge gained from collaborating partners to activity implementation in order to improve results.

USAID implementing partners shall convene on a periodic basis to reflect on actions taken, exchange analysis, and propose decisions that affect implementation.

C.5.2 Adapting

The Contractor shall demonstrate adaptability that is informed by knowledge gained through learning, and recognize behaviors and incentives necessary to create change. Knowledge gained through learning shall influence decision making, resource allocation, and adaptation to contextual shifts. Application of new knowledge to implementation decisions shall be reflected in the Annual

Work Plan and Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP). Decisions to adapt may be based on, but not limited to the following:

Extraneous changes in the operating environment (i.e. emergency or natural disaster;

national policy changes) Financial and human resource constraints Evidence that signals targets are unmet Emerging evidence that interventions are not working or could work better if adapted

Any changes to the scope of the contract must be approved by the Cognizant Contracting Officer in a modification to the contract. Changes in technical approach may be approved by the COR by way of the COR’s authority to provide technical direction and approve Annual Work Plans.

[END OF SECTION C]

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

It is USAID policy that USAID-financed commodities and shipping containers, and project construction sites and other project locations be suitably marked with the USAID emblem. Shipping containers are also to be marked with the last five digits of the USAID financing document number.

As a general rule, marking is not required for raw materials shipped in bulk (such as coal, grain, etc.), or for semi-finished products which are not packaged.

Specific guidance on marking requirements must be obtained prior to procurement of commodities to be shipped, and as early as possible for project construction sites and other project locations. This guidance will be provided through the cognizant technical office indicated on the cover page of this contract, or by the Mission Director in the Cooperating Country to which commodities are being shipped, or in which the project site is located.

Authority to waive marking requirements is vested with the Regional Assistant Administrators, and with Mission Directors.

A copy of any specific marking instructions or waivers from marking requirements is to be sent to the Contracting Officer; the original will be retained by the Contractor.

D.2 BRANDING AND MARKING POLICY

Branding Strategy Implementation and Markings under this contract must comply with the “USAID

Graphics Standards Manual” available at http://www.usaid.gov/branding or any successor branding policy, as detailed in ADS Chapter 320.

D.3 BRANDING STRATEGY

In accordance with ADS 320 Branding and Marking, and USAID’s overall policy, all assistance delivered through this program must be clearly credited to the American People. This Branding

Strategy (BS) outlines the framework in which materials and communications use to promote the program deliver the message that the assistance is from the American People, as well as to ensure appropriate use of the USAID identity markings. The branding strategy for this contract, as specified in USAID ADS 320.3.2.1, is as follows:

Program Name: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Programming for Orphans and

Vulnerable Children (OVC) Activities; (1) The Better Outcomes for Children and Youth (BOCY) and Sustainable Outcomes for Children and Youth (SOCY).

Positioning: The branding must incorporate the message: The assistance is “from the American people jointly sponsored by USAID and the Government of Uganda.”

Level of Visibility: USAID identity must be prominently displayed in: commodities or equipment;

audio, visual or electronic public communications; studies, reports, publications, web sites, and all promotional and informational products; and events.

[END OF SECTION D]

http://www.usaid.gov/branding

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by

Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the clause at FAR "52.252-2 CLAUSES

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract. See http://acquisition.gov/ far/index.html for electronic access to the full text of a clause

NUMBER TITLE DATE

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR Chapter 1)

52.246-4 Inspection of Services—Fixed Price (APR 1996)

E.2 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

USAID inspection and acceptance of services, reports and other required deliverables or outputs will take place at:

USAID/Uganda

US Mission Compound South Wing

Plot 1577 Ggaba Road

Kampala, Uganda

Or at any other location where the services are performed and reports and deliverables or outputs are produced or submitted. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) listed in Section G has been delegated authority to inspect and accept all services, reports and required deliverables or outputs.

E.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

The progress, success and impact of the Offeror’s performance under this contract will be monitored and evaluated as a part of the overall activity results. The QASP is a management tool with the intent of encouraging maximum performance, efficiencies and cost effectiveness by the

Offeror and can be modified at any time by the Government. The QASP will be used as a

Government document to enforce the inspection and acceptance clauses of the contract. The QASP might require revision after selection for award to reflect the Offeror’s known strengths and weaknesses. This is intended to be a “living” document that should be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. It is based on the premise that the Offeror, not the Government, is responsible for managing and ensuring that quality controls meet the terms of the contract.

The Government reserves the right to modify performance standards and/or metrics during the life of this contract, in order to ensure that the right outcomes are being assessed and that the performance standards are appropriate. The COR will ensure that QASP is implemented and updated.

http://acquisition.gov/far/index.html

A variety of mechanisms might be used to monitor the progress/success of the activity and the

Offeror’s performance:

a. Weekly contract mobilization meetings during the first three months of contract implementation

b. Monthly progress review meetings with the implementation teams

c. Review of Offeror’s scheduled reports (see Section F)

d. Feedback from Governments and collaborating partners in Uganda

e. Site visits by USAID personnel

f. Quarterly reviews of work plan with performance milestones

[END OF SECTION E]

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. See http://acquisition.gov/far/index.html for electronic access to the full text of a clause.

52.242-15 STOP-WORK ORDER AUG 1989

52.242-15 STOP-WORK ORDER ALTERNATE 1 APR 1984

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance of this contract is three (3) years from the date of award.

F.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Performance of this contract will be principally in Uganda.

F.4 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS

Required reports and deliverables are described as follows:

1. Attend an inception meeting: Within 1 month of award, the evaluation team will meet with

USAID/Uganda to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, design, methodology, and work plan.

2. Summary of inception meeting: This should be between 5-10 pages outlining shared understanding or points for follow up.

3. Evaluation design and work plan: Within 2 months of award, the evaluation team must submit to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) A detailed evaluation design matrix that defines outcome metrics and links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) A detailed data collection plan including draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) A list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); (4) Known limitations to the evaluation design; (5) A dissemination plan; (6) The anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; and (7) A list of the members of the evaluation team, delineated by roles and responsibilities.

4. Protocol for IRB submission: At least 2 months before data collection is scheduled to begin, the evaluation team must submit to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) a data collection protocol ready for submission to the appropriate local and U.S.-based IRB and upon USAID approval of the protocol, initiate the IRB process, expected to take up to one month. The IRB may have to be updated before each round of data collection. This may include translations of questionnaires into local languages. Pre-testing of instruments is expected; however, appropriate

IRB procedures shall be followed.

5. Annual evaluation report: The team is expected to submit to the Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR) an annual report. The report will address progress towards each of the questions identified and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. The report should include findings from the outcome study relating to SOCY and performance evaluation upon the anniversary of award. Should an interim round of data collection be collected (e.g., in 2018) it is expected that this annual report will provide an update of preliminary findings based on that effort.

6. Annual briefings and dissemination workshop: After each round of data collection, the evaluation team is expected to hold a briefing with USAID/Uganda and BOCY/SOCY program staff, as well as a dissemination workshop with additional stakeholders, including for example GOU partners, on evaluation findings, including potential challenges and emerging opportunities. The stakeholders will be selected by USAID/Uganda. The team will also provide the evaluation

COR/manager with periodic briefings and feedback as agreed in the work plan.

7. Final evaluation report: The evaluator is expected to submit to the Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR) an evaluation report after final data collection, which should include findings from the final collection round, as well as a discussion of findings from previous data collection rounds and progress over the life of the program/evaluation. The report will address each of the questions agreed on in the evaluation design and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. The report should include findings from the SOCY outcome study, and PE of both programs and should be consistent with the guidance provided in this solicitation. The submission date for the final evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan.

8. Final presentation and dissemination workshop: After final data collection, the evaluation team is expected to hold a briefing with USAID/Uganda and BOCY/SOCY program staff, as well as a dissemination workshop in country to share evaluation findings with additional stakeholders, including for example GOU partners, on…