Att_21_Risk_Assessment_SOW_RING_AKUS.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK

PRE-AWARD ASSESSMENT FOR

THE RESILIENCY IN NORTHERN GHANA (RING) PROJECT

BACKGROUND

Resiliency in Northern Ghana (RING) is a proposed integrated project and partnership effort under Feed the Future (FTF) to contribute to Government of Ghana (GOG) efforts to sustainably reduce poverty and improve the nutritional status of vulnerable populations.

The Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative, which aims to address the causes of hunger that limit the potential of millions of people, will establish a foundation for change by aligning USG resources with country-owned processes and multi-stakeholder partnerships. Ghana is a FTF stakeholder.

FTF consists of two high- level objectives to accelerate inclusive agricultural growth and improve nutritional status and supports the Millennium Development Goal 1 (MDG 1) of reducing global hunger and poverty. Although Ghana is on track to be the first sub-Saharan African country to meet MDG 1 targets, concerted efforts are needed to address regional disparities and ensure equitable growth. The three northern regions of Ghana (Northern, Upper West, and Upper East) continue to bear a disproportionate burden of food insecurity, poverty, and undernutrition and this is the reason for the RING project

RING aims to increase the resiliency of the very poor by increasing the consumption of diverse, quality foods, especially among women and children; improving behaviors affecting the nutrition of women and young children; and strengthening local support networks to address the ongoing needs of vulnerable households in the Northern Region.

The project implementation will be in 12 districts.

The 12 districts selected for RING will be divided into 3 categories reflecting their capacity to manage direct funding from USAID: “strong, medium, and weak,” which will correspond primarily to level of funding and management capacity. An external technical support unit (ETSU) will provide technical support and guidance to all districts in the program. “Strong and medium” districts, those determined to have transparent and effective financial management systems (including accounting, budgeting, and financial controls) in place, and capable of absorbing and programming varying levels of USAID funding, will be directly funded by USAID and will implement livelihood and nutrition activities. “Strong” districts are expected to absorb and program grants of $500,000 per year, and “medium” districts are expected to absorb and program grant of $200,000 per year. In “weak” districts that have not demonstrated sufficient capacity to manage direct funding, work to build the districts’ capacity to implement food security activities, utilizing sub-grants, and will also be tasked with building the capacity of the local government to manage direct funding for this type of programming. Procurement, human resources as well as managerial capabilities will also be assessed and strengthened.

II. TITLE

Pre-award of District Assembly Capability Assessments

III. OBJECTIVES

A. Assess the adequacy of the following 15 district assembly’s organizational structure, and administrative/ financial management internal/external controls and processes in carrying out its stated purpose and objective, in order for USAID to select a final 12.

- Bunkprugu-Yunyoo;

- Chereponi;

- East Gonja;

- East Mamprusi;

- Gushiegu;

- Kpandai

- Karaga;

- Nanumba North;

- Nanumba South;

- Saboba;

- Tamale;

- West Mamprusi;

- Zazugu Tatali;

- Savelugu Nanton;

- Tolon Kumbungu.

B. Recommend improvements where deemed necessary to strengthen the capabilities of the organization to carry out its mandate in an effective, efficient, and transparent manner.

C. Recommend placement of each district into the appropriate category according to its score: “strong, medium, or weak.”

IV. STATEMENT OF WORK

A. Work to be Performed

This statement of work contemplates a complete assessment and reporting of the results of such assessment of the selected district assembly (herein after referred to as the Institution/Organization) which should include, but not be limited to the following:

1. The effectiveness of the organizational structure, and administrative and financial management controls (internal and external) of the institution/unit/function assessed, and;

2. The effectiveness of administrative and financial management relationships between the central offices of the organization and of its decentralized units, as appropriate.

Assessments shall first and primarily consists of a desk review which examines existing reports from previously conducted evaluations of the capacity of district assemblies. USAID wishes to stress that the burden placed upon the DAs by participating in this assessment should be minimal. Therefore the contractor is encouraged to obtain as much information as possible from existing reports and data, before engaging directly.

The recommendations provided by the contractor shall focus on strengthening the organizational structure, its operational effectiveness and the appropriateness of its internal-external controls (for the institution/unit/functions assessed), and shall provide a rating of performance measure indicators include in Attachment A which is deemed necessary to measure the adequacy of the Institution’s capabilities to carry out its stated objectives/mandate.

B. Pre-Assessment Needs

Prior to the initiation of work, the Contractor shall become thoroughly familiar with the District Assembly’s legal framework; organizational structure; administrative-financial systems and controls (internal and external) in place staffing levels-capabilities; budget levels and process for budget development, control and reporting, etc.

C. Requirements

Carry out a desk review and inventory of all existing literature, reports, and data on the management capacity of the district assemblies, including but not limited to: information from the Functional Organizational Assessment Tool; the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Sector Wide Action Plan score; evaluations conducted under CIDA’s three major capacity building programs (District-wide Assistance Program, Community-driven Initiatives for Food Security, and Northern Region Small Towns Water and Sanitation) and others as appropriate.

Assess the organizational structure; personnel management (policies-procedures; staffing pattern;

number-quality of personnel; position descriptions; salary scales; benefit packages; hiring-evaluating-terminating practices, procedures and controls; etc.); and, administrative, financial and procurement/contracting policies, procedures, and internal-external control systems to determine their adequacy for effectively accomplishing the organization’s established mandate.

In performing the above task, the Contractor shall professionally assess and report on the following:

1. Organizational Management: Present and/or proposed – if any – organizational structure and of its effectiveness for administering, monitoring, controlling, and reporting on the Institution’s operations.

2. Personnel Management: Personnel management policies and procedures. In addition, delegations of authority, decision-making responsibilities, staffing patterns (number, qualification, and turnover of personnel), adequacy of position descriptions, and training.

3. Procurement: Procurement/contracting policies, procedures, regulations and controls. This segment of the assessment should include, but not be limited to ensuring that systems in place are: a) properly designed, documented, and prevent the application of improper business practices and conflicts of interest; b) ensure adequate safeguarding of procurement information and competitive procurement practices; etc.

4. Budget and Financial Reporting: Budget development, control, execution, monitoring and reporting processes. Is the budget process effective and transparent? The organization should disclose accurate, current, and complete financial information and analyze variance between budgeted and actual expenditures.

5. Financial Management System: Financial records should clearly identify: a) the source and application of all funds; b) provide effective control over and accountability for all resources. In addition, the contractor should assess and report upon the overall control environment and the adequacy of procedures for channeling funds to other implementing entities/decentralized organizations.

6. Auditing: Internal and external audit/ and resolution functions. Systems to track actions to address adequately and in a timely manner audit findings and recommendations. Adequacy of actions taken to correct recent (last two years) audit recommendations and status of any open/unresolved actions.

7. Project Management: The contractor should assess the organization process for developing, monitoring and reporting on project performance and relationship with sub-structures.

8. Transparency and Accountability: Assess the degree of public access to information and opportunity for the communities and district sub-structures to participate in DA functions.

9. Information System and Technology: Adequacy of information technology and systems of and administrative controls. In addition, assess the effectiveness and degree of implementation of such systems (GIFMIS).

The Contractor shall use the above information only as a guide for its proposal. The steps provided are not considered all-inclusive or restrictive in nature and do not constitute relief from exercising due professional care and judgment in their performance.

Any limitation in the scope of work shall be communicated as soon as possible to the USAID/WA controller office or his designee (hereinafter referred to as USAID/WA).

V. DELIVERABLES

The Contractor should submit to the USAID/WA the following deliverables:

A. Work Plan: A work plan for Mission approval no more than 10 calendar days after the effective date of the Purchase Order.

C. Draft and Final Detailed Assessment Reports: An initial draft final report of the assessment of the first three districts by no later than twenty (20) calendar days after approval of the work plan. A second draft final report including assessment findings from all 15 districts twenty (20) calendar days after approval by USAID/WA of the initial draft final report. Draft and final assessments reports should be comprehensive and of the highest quality (technical, language, content, presentation, etc.).

F. Copies of Deliverables:

Deliverables will be submitted to USAID/WA along with an electronic file format (CD) on Microsoft Word.

All products resulting from this SOW will become the property of USAID/WA for its use as it deems most appropriate.

VI. REPORT CONTENT

The firm will discuss findings with the organization and the designated USAID Technical officer as they develop. Upon completion of the pre-award assessment, the firm will prepare a draft report identifying any areas where there are findings for procedures, policies, internal controls or separation of duties. The report will include specific recommendations for steps to be taken to improve the capacity of each district.

A printed copy and an electronic copy of the report shall be submitted to USAID Regional Controller and to the assessed organization for their review and comments. The firm shall consider incorporation of USAID’s and the assessed organization’s comments and any additional documentation provided in the final report and furnish a printed copy and a “pdf” copy of the final report to both the USAID Regional Controller and the Director of the assessed organization within 15 days of receipt of the comments on the draft report.

The structure of the draft and final report shall be as follows:

1. Executive Summary

2. Table of contents

2. Background and Scope of Work

3. Review Methodology and Work Performed

4. Complete Assessment Questionnaire and scoring

4. Details of Findings

5. USAID Recipient’s Comments and the Firm’s Response thereto

6. Recommendations

A Prioritized listing of recommendations by topic; urgency; and in-house capability and/or external resource needs to implement. All information should be properly cross referenced to other sections of the report addressing the same and/or similar issues;

Impact of deficiencies on the organizations’ capability to implement its mandate i.e. “Strong, Medium, Weak”;

Impact of assessment results on the institutions effectiveness in carrying out its mandate.

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The following questionnaire is to be completed for each District Assembly. All questions should be analyzed by scoring of the performance measures. Comments should be provided to support the rating. The overall rating represents the best judgments of those making the assessment after all evidence has been considered. The overall rating (see legend below) will be used as the basis for determining the organization capability level.

Assessment Levels Legend:

1. Satisfactory (Strong) Score of 70 or above

Organization has no significant weakness in any areas evaluated. Shortcomings when viewed as a whole are not so significant that overall rating must logically be established as limited.

2. Limited Score of 50 to 70 Organization has no significant weaknesses in crucial areas such as procurement, administration, and internal control of accounting capability. Minor weaknesses in less crucial factors, when viewed as a whole are not as significant that overall rating must logically be established as unsatisfactory.

3. Unsatisfactory: (Weak) Score less than 50

Organization has serious weaknesses in one or more crucial areas or when viewed as a whole, combine to create serious doubt regarding capability.

1. SUMMARY RATING SHEET FOR DISTRICT ASSEMBLY CAPABILITY

Assessment Category

Maximum Score

Satisfactory Limited Weak

1.Organizational Management

2.Personel Management 7 3.Procurement 12 4.Budget and Financial Reporting

5.Financial Management 20 6.Auditing 10 7.Project Management 14 8.Transparency and Accountability

9.Information System and Technology

TOTAL 100

Overall Rating: Based on this Assessment, I/We feel that the overall contracting capability is:

/ / Satisfactory

/ / Limited

/ / Unsatisfactory

Date