RFP-SOL-623-17-000004_RIGO_Systems_Strengthening_Activity.pdf

RFP Issuance Date: August 4, 2017

Closing Date and Time for Submission of Questions: August 17, 2017 at 4:00PM Nairobi Time Closing Date and Time for Submission of Proposals: September 7, 2017 at 4:00PM Nairobi Time

Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) Number: SOL-623-17-000004

Regional Intergovernmental Organizations (RIGO) System Strengthening Activity

Dear Potential Offerors:

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking proposals to provide organizational strengthening assistance to three Regional Intergovernmental Organizations (RIGOs) that are the core partners with USAID/Kenya and East Africa (USAID/KEA). Organizational strengthening assistance will be provided to three RIGOs; the East African Community (EAC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and selected sub-entities of those RIGOs as described in the attached Request for Proposals (RFP).

Subject to availability of funds, USAID plans to award a hybrid contract: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) completion type contract for an anticipated five-year performance period.

The procurement will be conducted through full and open competition, under which any type of organization (large or small commercial [for profit] firms, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations) are eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 apply. U.S. Small Businesses are encouraged to apply.

The maximum overall estimated range of this procurement is from $8,000,000 to $12,000,000. The Government is in no way obligated to make any award, even within the ranges identified. Revealing the cost range for the contract does not mean that Offerors should strive to meet the maximum amount;

rather, Offerors should propose costs that are appropriate, realistic, reasonable and justifiable, and in accordance with the proposed approach for achieving results. Cost proposals will not be scored but will be evaluated as part of a best value determination.

Offerors should take into account the expected delivery time required by the proposal transmission method as specified in Section L, and they are responsible for ensuring proposals are received to the designated POC at USAID by the due date and time as specified in Section L. Offerors should take into account possible server delays, or other systems interferences that may delay their proposal receipt.

Regardless, it is the offerors responsibility to ensure timely receipt of proposal to USAID. Faxed proposals are not acceptable, nor will they be reviewed or evaluated. USAID requires that offers remain valid for a minimum of 180 days.

Please refer to Section L for information regarding proposal submission requirements. Section L of the RFP sets forth all instructions for the preparation and submission of required proposal content, including critical dates/times for the submission of questions, and the proposal submission closing date and time.

Section M sets forth the criteria by which proposals will be evaluated. Offerors are advised to pay attention to all specified requirements, and respond appropriately. In addition, offerors should carefully review and ensure all proposal responses are in accordance with Section M, evaluation criteria.

The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this activity is 937. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this activity is 541990.

This RFP in no way obligates USAID to award a contract nor does it commit USAID to pay any cost incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal. Award of a Contract under this RFP is subject to availability of funds and other internal USAID approvals.

This RFP can be viewed and downloaded from www.fedbizopps.gov (also www.fbo.gov). USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. Further, be aware that amendments to solicitations are occasionally issued and will be posted on the same website from which you downloaded the solicitation. Offerors are advised to regularly check fbo.gov to acquire the most recent amendment. Amendments to this RFP will be posted on the above website.

Sincerely, /s/

Kathlyn Bryant Contracting Officer, USAID/Kenya and East Africa http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ http://www.fedbizopps.gov/

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD 1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

1 102

2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER 4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

X NEGOTIATED (RFP)

5. DATE ISSUED 6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If other than item 7)

10. FOR

INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME

Jennifer Kiiru

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

jkiiru@usaid.gov

AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

August 4, 2017

SOL-623-17-000004

7. ISSUED BY CODE

Office of Acquisition and Assistance See Section L.5 of the RFP USAID Kenya and East Africa c/o US Embassy Nairobi, United Nations Avenue, Nairobi , Kenya NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

9. Sealed offers in original and Electronic Copies for furnishings 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 (See Section L.5 for Submission Instructions)

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.

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

PART I - THE SCHEDULE PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM 3 I CONTRACT CLAUSES 57-66

B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 6-8 PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH.

C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT 9-18 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 67

D PACKAGING AND MARKING 19-21 PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 22-23

K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER

STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

67-80

F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 24-31

G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 32-35 L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 81-94

H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 36-56 M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 95-98

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 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 45 days 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 set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

10 CALENDAR DAYS (%) 20 CALENDAR DAYS (%) 30 CALENDAR DAYS (%) CALENDAR DAYS(%)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO. DATE AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15A. NAME AND

ADDRESS

OF OFFER-

OR

CODE FACILITY 16. NAME AND THE TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER

(Type or print)

15B. TELEPHONE NUMBER 15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS IS

DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER SUCH

ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

17. SIGNATURE 18. OFFER DATE

AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

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

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) 41 U.S.C. 3304(a) ( )

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

See Section G.7

ITEM

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

See Section G.5

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Kathlyn Bryant

27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

28. AWARD DATE

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

Previous STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 6/2014) Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.214 (c)

Table of Contents OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) AWARD (To be completed by Government)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

D.2. BRANDING POLICY

D.3. BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKING PLAN

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

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 . 68

K.2 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (APR 2016)

K.3 INSURANCE - IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY

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

K.5 52.209-2 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH INVERTED

DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS REPRESENTATION (NOV 2015)

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

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

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

(OCT 2015)

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

2005)

K.10 52.209-11 REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATIONS REGARDING DELINQUENT TAX

LIABILITY OR A FELONY CONVICTION UNDER ANY FEDERAL LAW (FEB 2016)

K.11 52.203-98, PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH ENTITIES THAT REQUIRE

CERTAIN INTERNAL CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS –REPRESENTATION (APR 2015) 79

K.12 52.215-6 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (OCT 1997)

K.13 52.222-56 CERTIFICATION REGARDING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

COMPLIANCE PLAN (MAR 2015)

K.14 AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS

K.16 SIGNATURE

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ... 81

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

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

L.4 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.5 SUBMISSION/DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

L.7 COST PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF BRANDING AND MARKING PLANS .. 93

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.3 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.4 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE AND CONTRACT AWARD

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION

ATTACHMENT J.1: BUDGET TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT J.2: WORK PLAN TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT J.4: PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (PPI)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this contract is to provide services that fall within the Scope of Work (SOW) specified in Section C, for the Regional Intergovernmental Organization (RIGO) System Strengthening Activity.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This is a hybrid contract: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursement (Cost Plus Fixed Fee - CPFF) contract. CLIN 1 will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for Phase 2 of the contract and CLIN 2 will be Cost Reimbursement for Phases 1,3, and 4 of the contract. For the consideration set for the below, the Contractor will provide the performance objectives or outputs described in Section C and F, in accordance with performance standards specified in Section E.

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

CLIN 1 – Firm Fixed Price (FFP):

(a) The estimated fixed price for the performance of the work required hereunder is $TBD.

(b) Within the estimated fixed fee (if any) specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement for performance hereunder is $TBD. The Contractor must 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.

CLIN 2 – Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF):

(a) The estimated cost for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fee(s), if any, is $TBD. The base fee, if any, is $TBD and the maximum possible fee, if any is $TBD. The estimated cost plus all possible fees, if any, is $TBD.

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

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

B.4 BUDGET

CLIN 0001 PHASE 2 -RIGO Performance Assessments

CLIN 1a Firm Fixed Price $

CLIN 0001

Total of CLIN 0001: 1a $

CLIN 0002 PHASE 1, 3, and 4- RIGO Working Groups, Performance Solutions & Implementation Plan and Performance Monitoring & Evaluation

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)

CLIN 2a Direct Costs $

CLIN 2b Other Direct Costs (Phase 1,3,4) $

CLIN 2c Indirect Costs $

CLIN 2d Fixed Fee $

CLIN 0002:

(Total of CLIN 0002: 2a to 2d) $

CLIN 0003 Other Program Management Costs

CLIN 3a Direct Costs $ CLIN 3b Indirect Costs $ CLIN 3c Fixed Fee $

CLIN 0003:

(Total of CLIN 0003: 3a to 3c)

Total Estimated Contract Cost: $

(Sum of CLINs 0001 to 0003) $

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

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 TBD TBD TBD TBD

Base of Application: TBD Type of Rate: TBD Period: TBD Source: TBD

[To be determined]

Note: The Contractor is allowed to recover allowable and applicable indirect costs (i.e., overhead, G&A, etc.) consistent with FAR Part 31 and its approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).

B.6. CEILING ON INDIRECT COST RATES

(a) Reimbursement for allowable indirect costs will be at the lower of the negotiated final predetermined rates or the following ceiling rates:

Description Rate Base Type Period

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Base of Application: TBD Type of Rate: TBD Period: TBD Source: TBD

(b) 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.

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

B.7 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 2 ONLY)

CLIN 2 is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract under which the Contractor is authorized to be reimbursed for all costs which are allowable in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Costs and Payment.”

Furthermore, this is a multi-year contract as defined in FAR 17.103. Therefore, the Contractor must not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the contract should the contract be cancelled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2 “Cancellation under Multiyear Contracts (October 1997).”

Therefore, the cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is provided below:

Contract Year:

Cancellation Ceiling:

(Not to Exceed) Cancellation Date:

Contract Year 2: $[TBD] [TBD]

Contract Year 3: $[TBD] [TBD]

Contract Year 4: $[TBD] [TBD]

Contract Year 5: $[TBD] [TBD]

[END OF SECTION B]

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

1. Purpose

USAID/KEA requires a flexible and adaptive activity to provide organizational strengthening assistance to three Regional Intergovernmental Organizations (RIGOs) that are the core partners with USAID/KEA for advancing development in greater East Africa.

RIGO System Strengthening will provide organizational strengthening assistance to the East African Community (EAC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and selected sub-entities of those RIGOs.

The goal of the RIGO System Strengthening activity is to actualize a demonstrable, evidence-based improvement in the institutional capacity of each RIGO and a significant, measurable increase in each RIGO’s efficient, effective and sustainable organizational performance.

Regional challenges are not limited by national borders or local perspectives and are best addressed by indigenous organizations and approaches that are able to achieve economies of scale. The RIGOs, having been created to address the collective needs of their member states in the greater East African region, are well positioned to address these challenges as they promote integration and urge individual countries to implement policy reforms. The RIGO System Strengthening activity will help enable the RIGOs to fulfill their mandates to provide leadership to the development agenda in the region and ensure the long-term sustainability of development programming. To address organizational challenges and ensure sustained development gains, the RIGOs require strengthened management and governance systems to lead, coordinate, and promote evidenced-based development policies.

The three RIGO partners of USAID/KEA include:

EAC was formed in 1999 and is comprised of six member states. EAC’s mission is to “widen and deepen economic, political, social and cultural integration.” USAID/KEA partners with EAC to improve the quality of life of the people of East Africa through increased competitiveness, value added production, enhanced food security, trade, and investment. The EAC member states closely align with USAID’s Feed the Future initiatives and the EAC promotes the Trade Africa initiative.

The EAC works to harmonize policies and standards in agriculture including staple foods, customs, and prevention of aflatoxin amongst crops. The EAC Common Market, which established that goods moving through East Africa would only clear customs once, is a key outcome of USAID/KEA’s partnership with the EAC. The EAC Secretariat is based in Arusha, Tanzania. USAID also supports the EAC Lake Victoria Basin Commission, which has its own Secretariat in Kisumu, Kenya and the East Africa Health Research Commission, with its own Secretariat to be based in Bujumbura, Burundi.

COMESA was formed in 1994 to replace the Preferential Trade Area (PTA), which was established in 1981. COMESA is comprised of 19 member States. COMESA’s mission is to “endeavor to achieve sustainable economic and social progress in all member States through increased cooperation and integration in all fields of development particularly in trade, customs and monetary affairs, transport, communication, information and technology, industry and energy, gender, agriculture, environment and natural resources.” USAID/KEA has maintained a strong partnership with COMESA since 1998. USAID/KEA partners with COMESA in the trade and investment, agriculture, conflict mitigation, and administration, governance, environmental, and institutional strengthening sectors. COMESA has been a key partner in harmonizing policy and standards, especially in the areas of biotechnology, seed, and fertilizer. To date, intraregional trade with COMESA has grown by 40 percent and they have contributed to the decrease in cost of doing business in East Africa. The COMESA Secretariat is based in Lusaka, Zambia. USAID also supports COMESA’s Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa (ACTESA) and the COMESA Business Council.

IGAD was formed in 1996 to replace the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD), which was established in 1986. IGAD is comprised of eight member states. IGAD’s mission is to “promote regional cooperation and integration to add value to Member States’ efforts in achieving peace, security and prosperity.” USAID/KEA’s partnership with IGAD started in 2006 with support to the peace and security program, implemented through the Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN). USAID has collaborated with IGAD on drought management, conflict mitigation, food security and resilience, and climate predictions. The IGAD Secretariat is based in Djibouti City, Djibouti. USAID also supports the IGAD Center for Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN), which has its own Secretariat in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI), which is based in Djibouti, and the IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Center (ICPAC), which is based in Nairobi, Kenya.

The EAC, COMESA, and IGAD have been key partners with USAID in the greater East Africa region over the last decade in elevating the regional integration agenda and advancing regional policy formulation and harmonization. Although the RIGOs are maturing and emerging as leaders of the regional development process, they would benefit from more effective institutional governance systems -particularly in organizational governance, performance management, financial management, strategic planning, and donor coordination for resource utilization and mobilization.

Strengthening institutional governance requires organizations to identify and make the management changes necessary to internal structures and systems within an organization to become more effective and efficient in strategic planning, performance management, and daily operations. Strengthening institutional accountability requires organizations to be more responsive, transparent, and service oriented to member states. By demonstrating improved institutional governance and accountability, the RIGOs will be better positioned to secure additional member state buy-in and increased financial support for the development, approval, and domestic implementation of policies and standards that promote integration and sustainable, inclusive development. Additionally, improved strategic planning and donor coordination will enable the RIGOs to better direct resources to priorities areas avoiding duplications and enhancing impact to beneficiaries. By strengthening organizational management systems, the leadership role and sustainability of the RIGOs will be increased and their ability to achieve their mandates will be enhanced.

This RIGO System Strengthening activity is designed to provide organizational strengthening services to the RIGOs to enable the RIGOs to take effective ownership and leadership of the development agenda in the greater East African region. The EAC, COMESA, and IGAD Secretariats contributed to the development of the approach and desired results of this activity.

The activity will be informed by comprehensive organizational risk assessments that USAID has been conducting with each RIGO to identify gaps in governance and accountability systems and inform future organizational strengthening assistance. In addition to these USAID assessments, the European Union and other development partners have also conducted recent institutional assessments of the EAC, COMESA, and IGAD which will inform the activity.

The objective of RIGO System Strengthening is to achieve tangible improvements in the human and institutional capacity of the RIGO Secretariats and selected RIGO sub-institutions, if prioritized by the RIGO. USAID/KEA is seeking to obtain Contractor support to provide organizational strengthening support services to the RIGOs to strengthen the RIGOs’ institutional and organizational capacity to achieve their strategic priorities (see attached RIGO strategic plans, Section J, attachments J.9, J.10, J.11).

Priority areas for organizational strengthening support will be tailored to the individual needs of each RIGO, and will be determined through individual RIGO Working Groups based on assessment findings (including any future assessments), performance solution plans, RIGO priorities, and USAID approval.

Expected priority areas include:

● Financial management

● Performance management (monitoring and evaluation)

● Strategic planning

● Donor coordination

2. Relationship to the Mission Strategy:

USAID/KEA’s new Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RDCS) (see link in Section J) prioritizes support to the RIGOs as they harmonize policies and standards and scale up technologies and best practices in trade, investment, agriculture, energy transmission, environmental and natural resource management, climate change, countering violent extremism, and managing critical health threats in order to deepen regional integration, improve cross-border risk management, and strengthen regional institutions’ leadership and learning. In order to achieve these results, and ensure that gains are sustainable, USAID/KEA will work with the RIGOs through the RIGO System Strengthening activity as well as continuing to provide direct technical and financial support for RIGO-managed activities.

USAID/KEA’s support will strengthen the institutional capacity of RIGOs by enhancing their systems and structures, technical capacity, use of evidence in policymaking, and reaffirmation of their commitments to inclusive development principles.

In addition to, and separate from, the RIGO System Strengthening activity, USAID has and will continue to provide direct support to each RIGO for implementation of mutually agreed technical activities through Implementation Letters signed with each RIGO. The RIGO System Strengthening activity will find best success by providing overall organizational strengthening services that support and complement

USAID/KEA’s direct assistance to the RIGOs for technical activities in regional trade, agriculture, environment, governance, health, and conflict mitigation.

The RIGO System Strengthening activity may draw on both international and local service providers to achieve results. The Contractor is encouraged to prioritize partnerships with local service-providers to deliver training and organizational strengthening support services, thereby continuing to build and improve local expertise in the field of organizational development. As a cross-cutting theme, gender must be integrated into all activities of the project by identifying and supporting the RIGOs in addressing any gender-related disparities experienced by employees within the partner institutions.

3. Statement of Work

The Contractor must follow the principles of USAID’s Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) approach of structured and integrated processes that aim to identify and address fundamental causes of organizational performance gaps. The Contractor must also establish performance monitoring systems and establish a cyclical process of continuous performance improvement. The prime components of USAID’s experience-based HICD approach are detailed in the HICD Handbook (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadt442.pdf).

HICD is a model of structured and integrated processes for organizational strengthening that is designed to identify and address root causes of performance gaps in partner institutions. HICD addresses those gaps through a wide array of performance solutions in the context of all human performance factors, and enables cyclical processes of performance improvement through the establishment of performance monitoring and management systems.

In accordance with the HICD approach, the Contractor must identify and/or establish RIGO Working Groups, plan and implement any needed assessments, and plan, implement, and monitor performance strengthening activities to improve the institutional capacity of each RIGO. The duration and extent of different interventions must be determined on a case-by-case basis with each RIGO, with final approval from USAID, and based on available resources.

The Contractor must provide a comprehensive package of services, including:

3.A: Support Donor Coordination of Organizational Strengthening Assistance for each RIGO

The Contractor must support each RIGO in coordinating donor assistance for organizational strengthening. This must include mapping/documenting the types of organizational strengthening support assistance provided by donors to each RIGO and identifying any gaps. The Contractor’s approach must coordinate with, and be complementary to, any existing system, group or process that each RIGO may already have in place for donor coordination to avoid duplication. The Contractor must help each RIGO to leverage other donors’ support for organizational strengthening activities as identified and prioritized by each RIGO Working Group.

3.B. Phased Organizational Strengthening Approach The HICD process involves a phased approach of 1) establishment of RIGO Working Groups, 2) performance assessments, 3) performance solution identification and implementation, and

4) performance monitoring.

3.B.1. Phase 1: Establishment of RIGO Working Groups

The Contractor must work with each RIGO to establish and facilitate stakeholder working groups to lead the organizational strengthening process. If a RIGO has an existing group that serves a similar purpose, the Contractor must make every effort to utilize the existing group and avoid duplication. The Contractor must describe how the proposed RIGO Working Group will be coordinated with, and complementary to, any similar process for managing organizational strengthening that is already underway for each RIGO.

The primary function of the RIGO Working Groups is to provide a feedback loop between the RIGOs, key stakeholders identified by each RIGO, USAID, and the Contractor on the entire organizational strengthening process, including assessments, assessment reviews, selection and funding of recommended performance solutions, and evaluation of results.

The Contractor must streamline the composition and work of the working groups to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, ensure an efficient decisional structure, and minimize the burden on working group participants. The primary members of each RIGO Working Group must be management and key staff from the RIGO (who will lead the group, with support from the Contractor). The membership of the RIGO Working Groups must be approved by USAID and each RIGO and is expected to include:

● Leadership from the selected RIGO: Lead the working group and ensure buy-in for all organizational strengthening activities, to be selected by each RIGO.

● Key staff from the selected RIGO: Provides key input into the organizational strengthening decision-making process and helps ensure continued buy-in and institutional context, to be selected by each RIGO.

● Representative of RIGO sub-institutions, if appropriate.

● USAID/KEA staff substantially working with each RIGO or their sub-institutions, to be selected by USAID/KEA.

● Donor coordination representative from a donor entity, if appropriate.

3.B.2. Phase 2: RIGO Performance Assessments:

The Contractor, working in consultation with each RIGO Working Group, will review performance assessments for each RIGO and plan and implement additional assessments if required to identify areas requiring improved performance and strengthened human and institutional capacity that address the unique context and needs of each RIGO and its performance at the individual, work and organizational level. The assessment package must include the USAID Organizational Performance Index (OPI) measurement tool, or a similar tool approved by USAID/KEA.

There are a number of assessments and performance evaluations, both internal and external, that have been recently done with the RIGOs. In consultation with each of the RIGO Working Groups, the

Contractor must propose an assessment approach for each RIGO that minimizes duplication of existing assessments and minimizes the burden on the RIGO Working Groups, while collecting the information required to inform the organizational strengthening strategy and approach and establishing performance baselines. The proposed performance assessment approach is subject to approval by USAID and each RIGO Working Group.

Assessing organizational performance involves an examination of systems and infrastructure as they relate to overall organizational performance, and helps to ensure sufficient absorptive capacity for new technologies or skill sets. Individuals or workgroups can only perform as well as the organizational systems that support them. The Contractor must analyze assessment information in consultation with each RIGO Working Group to identify key organizational performance gaps and develop appropriate and specific, prioritized recommendations that will be presented to each RIGO and USAID in a formal assessment report. Developing solid criteria for selecting the most appropriate and cost effective performance solutions is the key to closure of a given performance gap. To ensure that the proposed interventions best address actual root causes, individual and workgroup, the Contractor’s assessment process must:

● Define desired performance by identifying critical tasks and preparing desired performance statements;

● Describe actual performance by collecting data through a variety of methods that reveal what current performance looks like;

● Identify performance gaps by analyzing the data collected, identifying the gap(s) between desired and actual performance, identifying relevant contributing factors, and selecting priorities; and

● Include an analysis of root causes to determine failing performance factors.

3.B.3. Phase 3: RIGO Performance Solution Identification and Implementation:

The performance solutions implementation package is a strategic management tool that provides a holistic approach to performance improvement at the sector, institutional, work unit, and individual level through performance analysis with full stakeholder involvement. Based on findings from the RIGO Performance Assessments, and in consultation with each RIGO Working Group and USAID, the Contractor must develop and implement specific performance solutions for each RIGO to address the root causes of institutional or organizational performance gaps identified in the performance assessment.

Performance solutions will need to be cognizant of the limited resources available through this contract, and must be prioritized accordingly. While performance solutions may include short or long-term technical assistance to each RIGO, the performance solutions must not propose USAID funding for permanent or semi-permanent RIGO staff positions. However, the performance solutions may include recommendations for RIGO staff positions to be funded by the RIGOs or other donors, provided that achievement of identified results are not dependent on such positions.

The performance solution packages must describe how proposed activities will be coordinated with, and complementary to, any other existing or planned organizational strengthening activities or processes that are already underway with each RIGO, or any other similar support.

The performance solutions package should also provide opportunities for peer learning and continuous improvement among the RIGOs.

In concert with each of the performance solutions packages, the Contractor must develop a detailed implementation plan for each RIGO describing how each RIGO’s performance solutions package will be implemented to address the identified and prioritized organizational strengthening support services for each RIGO. The performance solutions package and implementation plan must include the rationale for, and scope of, proposed activities, deliverables, milestones, timelines, budgets, and support from the Contractor and other sources, as well as a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan describing expected results and indicators. USAID/KEA and each RIGO must approve an implementation plan before it can be implemented. Whenever practicable, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be signed between USAID and each RIGO with a clear description of objectives and mutual roles, responsibilities, and expectations for the RIGO System Strengthening activity.

The Contractor must provide the performance solutions contained in the performance solutions package including, but not limited to, expert consultations, coaching, training, site visits, technical forums, software systems, and any other required technical assistance (though the Contractor must work with the RIGO Working Groups to augment resources available through this contract with resources from other donors, stakeholders, or the RIGOs themselves). Consideration must be given to how performance solutions might affect women and men differently, with the aim of mitigating and eliminating gender disparities. Performance solutions under this contract may be used to fill a void where no mission technical assistance provider exists or to supplement a technical assistance contractor, grantee, or recipient’s work plan.

3.B.4. Phase 4: RIGO Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System:

In light of the RIGOs ongoing activities to develop and strengthen their own M&E systems, the Contractor must assist each RIGO in establishing or strengthening RIGO M&E systems so that each RIGO has a functioning M&E system that measures each RIGO’s overall institutional capacity and performance (as distinct from the RIGO’s technical performance which may be captured through other M&E systems). The proposed performance monitoring and evaluation system for each RIGO is subject to approval from USAID and each RIGO. The performance monitoring and evaluation system must be designed to enable continuous performance monitoring to enable the RIGO to reassess its institutional capacity gaps and root causes of those gaps, thus informing cyclical revisions to the performance solutions package implemented by the Contractor.

Each RIGO performance monitoring and evaluation system must include a performance scorecard, dashboard, or other measurement tool that is specifically tailored to the context and needs of each RIGO for measuring institutional capacity and performance. Performance statements must be developed based on baseline data, organizational priorities and strategies and compared to actual performance providing critical information from which management can analyze the performance of the RIGO.

The RIGO performance monitoring and evaluation system must include a measurement of the domestication or utilization of selected regional policies and standards enacted by the RIGO which tracks member state implementation of regional policies and standards as one proxy of RIGO institutional performance.

The performance monitoring and evaluation systems will be an internal system used by each RIGO for its own performance and strategic management, but performance data related to the RIGO System Strengthening activity should also be shared with and accessible by the Contractor for reporting purposes to USAID. Each of the RIGO performance monitoring and evaluation system must allow for strategic course corrections at the macro-level as well as the re-alignment of activities being implemented throughout all levels the organization.

3.C. Contractor Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

In addition to the performance monitoring and evaluation systems developed for each RIGO as described above, the Contractor must develop an activity M&E Plan capable of providing USAID/KEA and each RIGO with timely, accurate data on the results of the RIGO System Strengthening activity. The M&E Plan must include measures of the efficiency of each intervention with each RIGO in its component parts, and the effectiveness of USAID/KEA’s investment including the main inputs and outputs, milestones and deliverables. The Contractor shall reflect the progress in periodic progress reports and data entered in the USAID TraiNet (http://trainetweb.usaid.gov).

The Contractor must utilize the USAID OPI measurement tool, or a similar tool approved by USAID/KEA, in the M&E Plan to inform establishment of baselines and targets for organizational performance and capacity development of each RIGO and to measure results. The Contractor must propose other appropriate measures of organizational performance and capacity development, tailored for each RIGO.

The M&E Plan must also include measures of the sustainability of interventions, including, but not limited to, the following:

• The RIGO has demonstrated sustained, measurable levels of relative performance improvement that directly supports its institutional goals;

• The RIGO has basic levels of in-house knowledge and access to external sources for organizational strengthening support services (such as local service providers that have benefited from the transfer of HICD know-how from the Contractor);

• The RIGO has a performance measurement system that is relevant, functioning and is being utilized;

• The RIGO has an ongoing plan to develop and implement interventions in response to the measurement system; and

• The RIGO has a strategy for obtaining resources for ongoing future interventions and sustainable continued cycles of performance improvement.

4. RIGO System Strengthening Responsiveness to USAID/KEA and each RIGO

The Contractor must establish operations that enable the Contractor to be fully responsive to USAID/KEA and each RIGO. The Contractor should propose a management plan and office structure that emphasizes creative approaches to minimize management costs and make the most cost-efficient use of available resources.

COORDINATION

The Contractor may be requested to coordinate and cooperate with other relevant projects and initiatives being funded or led by USAID or other donors including USAID direct funding to the RIGOs for technical activities, USAID-funded third-party activities that provide support to the RIGOs for technical activities, and other donor-funded activities related to RIGO organizational strengthening.

6. Contract Implementation

Because of the highly fluid nature of organizational strengthening, and the varying needs of the RIGOs, this contract must be implemented in a way that maximizes flexibility and that gives the Contractor time to assess the situation and design appropriate activities. Accordingly, the Contractor must conduct and review assessments as described in Phase 2: RIGO Performance Assessments, and share the resulting reports with each RIGO and USAID. Where possible, assessments should be used to gather baseline data for monitoring and measuring results. The format for the assessment reports must be approved by the COR before work begins on the assessments, unless otherwise approved by the COR.

The Phase 3: RIGO Performance Solutions will be developed by the Contractor in close consultation with each RIGO Working Group and USAID, based on the Performance Assessments. Performance Solutions must take into account potential opportunities, challenges, needs, requests, and the activities of other donors and development actors. The proposed performance solutions must be submitted to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for approval. Each of the RIGO Performance Solution packages submitted by the Contractor must include a detailed implementation plan with the following elements:

● Relevant background and context;

● A detailed description of each proposed organizational strengthening activity to be undertaken as part of the RIGO Performance Solution, including a description of capacity gaps and needs;

● A detailed activity-level monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan that describes expected results of the RIGO Performance Solution including:

o Log frame detailing activities, outputs and outcomes;

o Baseline data collection plan;

o Performance indicator reference sheets.

● An overview of relevant plans and strategies by the RIGO to address the organizational capacity areas being prioritized, including notable challenges and/or progress;

● An overview of relevant plans, strategies, and programs being undertaken or planned by other donors or any other stakeholders on the organizational capacity area being addressed, including notable challenges and/or progress and expected coordination with those donors and stakeholders;

● An overview of relevant actors and their perspectives, including key actors, potential champions, possible spoilers, and expected beneficiaries and impact, including analysis of possible differential effects the activities might have on men and women;

● A detailed budget and budget narrative;

● A timeframe for each proposed event or activity.

The Contractor must be accountable for achieving the agreed upon results defined in the Phase 3: RIGO Performance Solutions packages, each of which will be incorporated into the contract by modification once approved.

Because of the fluid nature of organizational strengthening, the Phase 3: RIGO Performance Solutions may be revised, with USAID and RIGO approval, during implementation.

[END OF SECTION C]

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

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

(d) 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 POLICY

The Contractor will comply with the requirements of the policy directives and required procedures outlined in USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) 320.3.2 “Branding and Marking in USAID Direct Contracting” (version from January 8, 2007) at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/320.pdf; and USAID "Graphic Standards Manual" available at www.usaid.gov/branding, or any successor branding policy.

As per 320.3.2 Branding and Marking in USAID Direct Contracts, USAID policy is to require exclusive branding and marking in USAID direct acquisitions. “Exclusive Branding” means that the program is positioned as USAID’s, as showcased by the program name (e.g., “The USAID/Afya Program”).

“Exclusive Marking” means Contractors may only mark USAID-funded programs, projects, activities, public communications, and commodities with the USAID Standard Graphic Identity and, where applicable, the host-country government or ministry symbol or another U.S. Government logo.

It is USAID’s policy that Contractors’ and Subcontractors’ corporate identities or logos must not be used on USAID-funded program materials.

D.3. BRANDING STRATEGY AND MARKING PLAN

Branding strategy implementation and marking under this contract will comply with the “USAID Graphics Standards Manual” available at http://www.usaid.gov/branding and any successor branding policy as detailed in the Automated Directive System (ADS) Chapter 320.3.2 “Branding and Marking in

USAID Direct Contracting” (version from January 8, 2007) at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/320.pdf.

Activity name: The name of the activity will be the USAID/Kenya and East Africa “[RIGO]”System Strengthening Program. In every public event or document and in discussions with the RIGOs and other counterparts, the contractor will identify the activity as the USAID/Kenya and East Africa “[RIGO]” System Strengthening Program (which can be abbreviated to “[RIGO]” after the initial reference is made in a particular instance).

Branding: Branding will incorporate the message that the assistance is “From the American People,” and is sponsored by USAID. USAID policy is to require exclusive branding and marking in all its direct contracts.

Positioning: Publicity materials and communications will clearly reflect the notion that this activity is provided by the American People through USAID with the close collaboration and support of the RIGOs.

No other organizations will be acknowledged publicly in connection with RIGO Activity.

Visibility: USAID seek a very high level of visibility through USAID-branded public events, high‐ level visits, community awareness and training activities, and media coverage. However, the Contractor may propose activities to be exempted from this requirement to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for concurrence and for Contracting Officer approval.

Approval Procedures: In carrying out the approved Branding Implementation and Marking Plans, the contractor will seek timely approval from the COR for all public and media documents, speeches, and event preparation forms as per USAID/Kenya and East Africa outreach and communication procedures at least three (3) weeks prior to the implementation date of the subject activity. Specific waivers of branding implementation and marking require Contracting Officer’s advanced written approval.

Anticipated Elements of Marking Plan: Deliverables to be marked include products, equipment and inputs delivered; places where activities are carried out; external public communications, studies, reports, publications and informative and promotional products; and workshops, conferences, fairs and any such events.