SOL-641-12-000005 _Amend_1.pdf

SOL‐641‐12‐000005, Amendment No. 1

RFP Cover letter

1- RFP Closing Date, DELETE “November 15, 2012” and REPLACE with “January 7, 2013” 2- ADD, the following:

“A pre-proposal conference will be held on November 28, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in Accra, Ghana. Location will be announced later through an amendment to this RFP. Please submit confirmation of your participation to accracontract@usaid.gov no later than November 16, 2012.”

Section C:

1- Section C.3.B (p. 13), Key Element of RING, DELETE:

“Geographic scope: Fourteen Districts of Northern Region Given its situation of under-nutrition and poverty, Northern Region will be the focus region for RING.

Northern Region has received significant attention and development assistance, i.e., there are many initiatives on-going in the region. Yet, there are still many gaps and challenges in reaching the most vulnerable households.

Northern Region has a total estimated population of 2.2 million in 20 districts. The Government of Ghana is subdividing districts in Northern Region which will result in at least 26 districts in the region.

USAID has selected 14 districts for inclusion in RING (based on the 20 districts in Northern Region in md-2012), identified in Table 1 below. As these 14 districts are subdivided by the Government of Ghana, the total number of districts included in RING will increase in order to maintain the same area and population targets. The 14 districts selected for RING were chosen based on a number of factors including: magnitude of under-nutrition among women and children, prevalence of extreme poverty;

potential for co-location with USAID’s Economic Growth implementing partners’ activities (i.e.

ADVANCE); and fulfillment of minimum conditions of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and the Environment’s Functional Organization Assessment Tool (FOAT) assessment areas in 2010.

Each of these 14 districts are undergoing an assessment1 of their financial and management capacity (conducted by USAID). Of the 14 selected districts, USAID expects that 10 DAs will qualify for direct funding from USAID initially (along with technical support from the Contractor), while the remaining four DAs will be supported through Contractor-funded activities until their capacity is increased sufficiently to qualify for direct USAID funding. Both direct and indirect funding will flow through the 14 selected districts to respective area councils. Area councils will be randomized into four arms, three intervention arms and one control arm. Randomization will take place before any activity begins.

1 NRCC and DA assessments are being done by USAID/Ghana per ADS 220 in close coordination with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, the NRCC and the DAs.

Table 1. RING Districts District Estimated

Population Est. Women of Reproductive Age

Est.

Children under Five

1.West Gonja 86,483 21,620 17,476

2. Chereponi 58,074 14,519 8,711

3. East Gonja 215,966 53,992 32,395

4. East Mamprusi 216,416 54,104 32,462

5. Gushiegu 77,618 19,405 11,643

6. Karaga 77,618 19,405 11,643

7. Kpandai 200,000 50,000 30,000

8. Nanumba North 89,282 22,320 13,392

9. Nanumba South 89,282 22,320 13,392

10. Saboba 58,074 14,519 8,711

11. Tamale 363,716 90,929 54,557

12. Central Gonja 86,483 21,620 17,476

13. SaveluguNanton 111,347 27,837 16,702

14. TolonKumbungu 164,398 41,100 24,660 Total 1,973,051 457,388 281,721

And REPLACE with the following:

Geographic scope: Seventeen Districts of Northern Region Given its situation of under-nutrition and poverty, Northern Region will be the focus region for RING.

Northern Region has received significant attention and development assistance, i.e., there are many initiatives on-going in the region. Yet, there are still many gaps and challenges in reaching the most vulnerable households.

Until recently, the Northern Region had a total estimated population of 2.2 million in 20 districts.

However, the Government of Ghana has begun to create a number of smaller districts and it is expected that the Northern Region will be home to a total of 26 districts.

USAID has selected 17 districts for inclusion in RING, identified in Table One below. Please note that the total population sizes, and even the names of the new districts are not currently known in their totality but the total population and area sizes are. The 17 districts selected for RING were chosen based on a number of factors including: magnitude of under-nutrition among women and children, prevalence of extreme poverty; potential for co-location with USAID’s Economic Growth implementing partners’ activities (i.e. ADVANCE); and fulfillment of minimum conditions of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and the Environment’s Functional Organization Assessment Tool (FOAT) assessment areas in 2010.

Each of these 17 districts are undergoing an assessment of their financial and management capacity (conducted by USAID). Of the 17 selected districts, USAID expects that 10 DAs will qualify for direct funding from USAID initially (along with technical support from the Contractor), while the remaining seven DAs will be supported through Contractor-funded activities until their capacity is increased sufficiently to qualify for direct USAID funding.

Table 1. RING Districts District Estimated

Population Est. Women of Reproductive Age

Est.

Children under Five

1.West Gonja 86,483 21,620 17,476

2. Newly split district from West Gonja

3. Chereponi 58,074 14,519 8,711

4. East Gonja 215,966 53,992 32,395

5. East Mamprusi 216,416 54,104 32,462

6. Gushiegu 77,618 19,405 11,643

7. Karaga 77,618 19,405 11,643

8. Kpandai 200,000 50,000 30,000

9. Nanumba North 89,282 22,320 13,392

10. Nanumba South 89,282 22,320 13,392

11. Saboba 58,074 14,519 8,711

12. Tamale 363,716 90,929 54,557

13. Newly split district from Tamale

14. Central Gonja 86,483 21,620 17,476

15. Savelugu Nanton 111,347 27,837 16,702

16. Tolon Kumbungu 164,398 41,100 24,660

17. Newly split district from Tolon Kumbungu

Total 1,973,051 457,388 281,721

2- On p. 15 (top of page), DELETE “At any rate, all area councils will be randomized and the number of area councils is not expected to be homogenous across districts given the randomization process. Please note that what activities will be implemented where will largely be determined by the Randomized Control Trial (RCT) that is described in more detail below.”

3- On p. 34, first paragraph, last sentence, DELETE, “Finally, USAID will contract separately for a Random Control Trial (RCT) to evaluate the impact of the RING project, which is described below.” and REPLACE with the following:

“Finally, USAID will contract separately for a rigorous impact evaluation to evaluate the impact of the RING project, which is described below.”

4- On p. 35-36, DELETE entire section, Impact Evaluations, “An external partner…along with sub-component three in all area councils.” and REPLACE with the following:

“Impact Evaluations: An external partner, to be determined, will conduct impact evaluations to assess the changes resulting from RING interventions and investments in targeted communities in Northern Region. These evaluations will help determine if the project is achieving project objectives to improve livelihoods, nutritional status, and local support systems. Impact evaluations will be used to determine not only the achievement of outcomes under RING, but also the relative effectiveness of the direct model vs.

the indirect model in achieving key results. The impact evaluations will not be the responsibility of the Contractor, but the Contractor must closely coordinate and collaborate with the impact evaluation partners. The impact evaluation will likely include a panel study to better understand, in real time, programmatic realities, which could be of great use to the Contractor, further reinforcing why a collaborative professional relationship with the impact evaluator is needed.

The central questions to be evaluated include:

Does increasing household assets and access to quality foods and nutrition education result in improved nutritional status of vulnerable populations, especially women and young children, in Northern Ghana?

Are DAs capable of effectively responding to the on-going needs of vulnerable populations?“

5- On p. 37, DELETE, Randomized Control Trial of Intervention Mix in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

Rigorous Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation will be funded and operationalized separately but it is important to point out the critical link between the Contractor and the impact evaluation. The Contractor must collaborate closely with the impact evaluation implementer.

It is vitally important that the Contractor describe and implement a system for continuous communication with both METSS and the yet to-be-named Impact Evaluation implementer as the impact evaluation is implemented. The Contractor must demonstrate an ability to take critical inputs, feedback, and assessments from evaluation partners to inform changes in program approaches and scale-up. While some roles and responsibilities of the successful Contractor versus the external evaluation partner are defined herein, the successful Contractor will also work closely with USAID and evaluation partners to further define roles and responsibilities for M&E in order to avoid duplication of efforts or gaps in critical data sharing.

In addition, the Contractor will need to work closely with the Impact Evaluation implementer, the DAs and the NRCC to communicate appropriate information to communities about the impact evaluation process.

The performance indicators for the Contractor will be a combination of indicators of progress in identifying and addressing livelihood and nutrition needs among vulnerable populations, and progress in strengthening DAs to manage these programs with direct financial assistance from USAID. USAID will track the performance of the Contractor in terms of the key tasks that they must perform, both in building capacity of DAs and in delivering services to target populations, through the DAs with which they work directly.

In addition, the Contractor must assure the development of a network of technical assistance support from organizations in Ghana. This network must include organizations with expertise in the wide range of technical areas and issues that RING addresses: livelihoods, nutrition, hygiene, SBCC, management, including financial management, etc.”

6- Section C.4. of the RFP, the bottom of p. 22 Bullet, DELETE

Beneficiary mobilization and engagement: The Contractor must encourage …..will have a positive effect not only on women but on them as well. “ and REPLACE with the following:

“Beneficiary mobilization and engagement: The contractor must encourage beneficiaries to participate enthusiastically in RING-supported interventions, given the unique opportunities that RING offers to both the household and individuals to improve economic conditions and ensure a better future for themselves and their children. If early acceptors and participants demonstrate positive outcomes, i.e., “positive deviance,” they are likely to ignite increased interest in RING within the community. The Contractor should place particular emphasis on ensuring that RING-supported interventions address the many gender inequities within households and communities that adversely affect women’s economic and nutrition status. At the same time, the Contractor must ensure that male community stakeholders and family members gain awareness of how these changes will have a positive effect not only on women but on them as well.”

7- On page 24, under heading Savings and Credit Mechanism, DELETE first bullet in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

Semiformal institutions (“non-bank financial institutions”) such as NGOs and cooperatives (e.g.

credit unions), are registered but not licensed by the central bank, so they are not legally permitted to accept deposits from the general public, however, credit unions, may, as usual, mobilize deposits from their members. NGOs have led innovations in Ghana’s financial sector but tend to stay committed to their social mandates of serving the poor and offer services to meet their unique and complex needs.”

8- On page 46, Section F.5.3, At Project Completion, DELETE “The contractor must submit evidence of capacity built within the NRCC and all targeted DAs concerning the following:

• 50% increase in funding by all 14 DAs to local activities that directly support improved nutrition and livelihoods for vulnerable households.

• Management systems of all 14 DAs increased so that all 12 DAs qualify for continued receipt of direct USAID funding.

• NRCC and all 14 DAs complete 80% of Annual Work Plan activities on time and on budget.

• NRCC and all 14 DA Annual Work Plans incorporate coordinated multi-sectoral activities across agriculture, nutrition, social welfare and health.

• NRCC and all 14 DAs engage citizens in participatory planning and budgeting for nutrition and livelihood activities including inclusion of input from all Area Councils.

• M&E capacity of NRCC and all DAs strengthened enabling the NRCC and all 14 DAs to meet USAID requirements for reporting on all project indicators.

• NRCC and all 14 DAs hold annual public forums to share results of RING activities.

341,000 individuals reached 2

85,000 Women of Reproductive Age reached

51,000 Children under five reached

” And REPLACE with the following:

“The contractor must submit evidence of capacity built within the NRCC and all targeted DAs concerning the following:

• 50% increase in funding by all 17 DAs to local activities that directly support improved nutrition and livelihoods for vulnerable households.

• Management systems of all 17 DAs increased so that all 17 DAs qualify for continued receipt of direct USAID funding.

• NRCC and all 17 DAs complete 80% of Annual Work Plan activities on time and on budget.

• NRCC and all 17 DA Annual Work Plans incorporate coordinated multi-sectoral activities across agriculture, nutrition, social welfare and health.

• NRCC and all 17 DAs engage citizens in participatory planning and budgeting for nutrition and livelihood activities including inclusion of input from all Area Councils.

• M&E capacity of NRCC and all DAs strengthened enabling the NRCC and all 17 DAs to meet USAID requirements for reporting on all project indicators.

• NRCC and all 17 DAs hold annual public forums to share results of RING activities.

2 The numbers of people reached have been estimated as follows: Based on census data, there are an estimated 263,672 households in the 14 districts in Table 1 above. An estimated 61% of these households are agriculturalists in the lowest wealth quintile, of which an estimated 50% will be in the

RING project coverage area, of which there are an estimated 7.9 persons per household resulting in nearly 341,000 individuals to be reached. Of those individuals, an estimated 25% (85,000) will be women of child bearing age and 15% (51,000) will be children under five.

326,000 individuals reached

81,000 Women of Reproductive Age reached

49,000 Children under five reached

District Estimated Population Estimated

Households Est. Women of

Reproductive Age Est. Children under

Five 1.West Gonja 86,483 11,531 21,620 17,476

2. Chereponi 58,074 7,445 14,519 8,711

3. East Gonja 215,966 31,299 53,992 32,395

4. East Mamprusi 216,416 27,746 54,104 32,462

5. Gushiegu 77,618 8,085 19,405 11,643

6. Karaga 77,618 8,085 19,405 11,643

7. Kpandai 200,000 26,667 50,000 30,000

8. Nanumba North 89,282 11,595 22,320 13,392

9. Nanumba South 89,282 11,595 22,320 13,392

10. Saboba 58,074 7,445 14,519 8,711

11. Tamale 363,716 55,596 90,929 54,557

12. Central Gonja 86,483 11,531 21,620 17,476

13. Savelugu Nanton 111,347 13,747 27,837 16,702

14. Tolon Kumbungu 164,398 19,571 41,100 24,660 Total 1,973,051 251,938 457,388 281,721

Footnote 4 is revised as follows: The numbers of people reached have been estimated as follows: Based on census data, there are an estimated 252,000 households in the 14 districts in Table 1 above. An estimated 54% are agriculturalists, 61% of these households are in the lowest wealth quintile, of which an estimated 50% will be in the RING project coverage area, of which there are an estimated 7.8 persons per household resulting in nearly 326,000 individuals to be reached. Of those individuals, an estimated 25% (81,000) will be women of child bearing age and 15% (49,000) will be children under five. RING will officially be active in 17 districts but these will have been sub-divided from the 14 districts listed above. The districts are listed above to are listed above facilitate comparisons and given that no reliable population data and names exist for newly emerging districts.”

Section J:

Section J, List of Attachments, ADD the following:

“Attachment 13: USAID Trip Report: Wolfe, J., Assistance Options for Vulnerable Populations in Ghana. Washington D.C. July 2010. Available at:

http://www.scribd.com/jmwolfe/d/54891038-Assistance-Options-for-Vulnerable-Households-in- Ghana

Attachment 14: The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development (CAADP) Program.

Ghana Review of On-going Agriculture Development Efforts. 2009. Accra. Available at:

http://www.nepad-caadp.net/library-country-status-updates.php

Attachment15: World Food Program. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment. May 2009. Accra. Available at:

http://www.wfp.org/content/republic-ghana-comprehensive-food-security-and-vulnerability-analysis-2009

Attachment 16: World Bank. Republic of Ghana: Tackling Poverty in Northern Ghana. March 2011. Washington, DC. Available at:

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2755

Attachment 17: World Bank. From Agriculture to Nutrition: Pathways, Synergies, and Outcomes. Washington, DC. February 2007. Available at:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/825826- 1111134598204/21608903/January2008Final.pdf

Attachment 18: FtF Economic Growth IEE

Attachment 19: National MICS Presentation to Health Summit, April 23, 2012

Attachment 20: Draft Multiple Indicator Cluster survey report

Attachment 21: Statement of Work and Reports for RING Districts Assessment”

Attachment 22: Local Compensation Plan

Attachment 23: Ghana Zone of Influence Population Based Survey Instrument

Attachment 24: Stunting Presentation

Attachment 25: Gender Assessment USAID/Ghana https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjk tZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=MzI0NDQ3

Section H:

1- Section H.15 b) on page 60, DELETE in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

“b) All sub-grants below $150,000 must be submitted to COR for concurrence. All Sub-grants exceeding $150,000 must be submitted to COR and CO for prior approval.”

Section L:

1- Page 96, L.5(b) Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, first paragraph, 2 last sentences, DELETE in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

“The page limitation is inclusive of the executive summary, technical understanding and approach, management approach and institutional capacity, and key personnel and staffing plan. Annexes do not count against the page limit.”

2- RFP Page 96, Section L.5(e), DELETE “cost proposals” and REVISE this section as follows:

“All pages of the technical should be sequentially numbered. Failure to include all information, or to organize the proposal in the manner prescribed immediately below, may result in rejection of the proposal as being unacceptable.”

3- RFP Page 102, Overhead and G&A, DELETE “ audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two years and the current year-to-date statements” and REPLACE with the following:

“the Offeror and major subcontractor(s) shall support the proposed indirect cost rate with a letter from a cognizant U.S. Government audit agency or with sufficient information for USAID to determine the reasonableness of the rates. (For example, a breakdown of labor bases and overhead pools, the method of determining the rate, a description of all costs in the pools, etc.).”

4- RFP Page 100, Annexes, DELETE in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

“Annexes

Annex A – Resumes for Key Personnel Annex B – Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel and Subcontractors Annex C – Prime and Major Subcontractor Past Performance (see instruction under Past Performance) Annex D – Branding Implementation and Marking Plan Annex E – Draft PMP”

Section M:

1- Page 109, Section M. 3 DELETE Criteria Management Approach Bullet 2 in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

Demonstrated organizational experience in effectively grooming host government entities for direct donor assistance, particularly in the agriculture, nutrition and health sectors. Demonstrated organizational experience managing a contract of this size and complexity, including proven ability to manage grants and sub-contracts with local NGOs and local government entities (10 points)”

The following are responses to questions we received. Similar questions are combined to avoid duplication.

General questions:

5- I was wondering if you could tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

Response: There is no incumbent contractor.

6- Could USAID please provide an FSN scale for Ghana?

Response: Please see attached local compensation plan.

7- In order to facilitate comparison of proposed costs by the various bidders, please provide an estimated Ghanaian Cedis to U.S. Dollar exchange rate.

Response: The cost proposal must be in US Dollar. Determination of exchange rate is the offerors’ responsibility.

Section B:

8- Page 6, Clause B.7 Advance Understanding On Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates And

Final Reimbursement For Indirect Costs, we object to B.7 “Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates and Final Reimbursement for Indirect Costs” as there is no regulatory basis for requiring ceilings on indirect cost rates at the proposal stage.

We request that this section be deleted in its entirety.

Response: See amendment.

Section C:

Questions on number of districts included in RING

1- Pg. 13-15: Geographic targeting: Please confirm the following summary of the geographic targeting for RING and clarify any misstatements:

§ 14 districts in Ghana’s Northern Region have been chosen by USAID to participate in this program – though that number may increase as districts subdivide over the course of the project.

§ Of those districts, programming in two, namely Chereponi and Saboba, will engage the entire district (i.e. all area councils in all activities).

§ Of the remaining 12 districts, programming will occur in not more than 5 area councils per district.

Response: The RFP has been amended to reflect a clear explanation of the number of districts.

In brief, the Government of Ghana is in the process of subdividing districts, including in the Northern Region. Our understanding is that three of the 14 selected districts in the Northern Region will subdivide, creating a total of 17 districts that will participate in

RING.

Chereponi and Saboba District Assemblies have already been cleared to receive direct funding from USAID. Eight additional District Assemblies are expected to receive funding directly from USAID during the first year. Seven DA’s will receive funding from the contractor and then transition to receive direct funding from USAID during the RING project period; transition to direct funding from USAID will be dependent upon USAID’s assessment that they meet the requirements of ADS 220.

Questions on Area Councils

2- Pg. 15, Paragraph 1 notes that each district is broken down into several Area Councils and that RING will, at times, only cover a portion of these councils (Up to five or, in other cases, whole districts). Will USAID provide the final listing of all area councils to be covered under RING? If not, can USAID elaborate on how this will be determined and at what time?

Response: The Government of Ghana is in the process of subdividing districts and Area Councils. Applicants may contact the GOG, specifically, the Ministry of Local Government, for the definitive list of area councils, for further information.

Questions requesting additional technical or background information

3- Could USAID provide the results of the 2011 “Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

(MICS) if available?

Response: The 2011 MICS data is not yet publically available. MICS data that was presented at the Health Summit has been added to the Annexes, as has a presentation containing MICS information that was presented at an USAID partners meeting in August, 2012. Further, MICS data tables that were forwarded to a few partners, on request, after the August, 2012 partners meeting have also been added to the Annexes.

4- Would USAID please provide examples of where it has funded or is currently funding organizations to groom host government entities for direct USAID assistance, particularly in the agriculture, nutrition and health sectors?

Response: For decades USAID and its partners have been building the capacity of local governments, civil society institutions and the private sector to better manage their organizational, programmatic and financial operations. This experience has created a wealth of experiences, tools and best practices for institutional development, many of which can be found here: https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx. More information can also be found on Implementation and Procurement Reform, the Public Financial Management Risk Assessment.

Framework, and USAID Forward here: http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/progress-data/usaid-forward.

5- Page 17, Section C.4 Detailed Work Statement, requires the Offeror to collaborate with USAID and partners working on FTF IR1 and IR3. Please provide the current USAID project implementers and the duration of their projects to ensure optimal collaboration in program design for this IR2 initiative.

Response:

Intermediate Result One Partner:

ADVANCE, implemented by ACDI/VOCA, June, 2013

Intermediate Result Three Partners:

Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA), implemented by FHI 360, a global project that ends February, 2017 but renewed at mission level annually

Behavior Change Support (BCS), implemented by Johns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, August, 2013

6- Will USAID provide guidance as to the anticipated start date for implementation of the Regional Integrated Trade and Food Security Program?

No information is publically available at this time.

7- Page 60, Section H.16: Will USAID please share the Initial Environmental Examination with Offerors?

Response: A revised list of attachments and links for Section J is attached.

Questions on METTS Survey

8- Page 34, Section C.7: Will USAID please provide some additional details about the KSU baseline survey? Specifically:

Does the Kansas State University (KSU) baseline population survey provide disaggregated indicators for the most vulnerable households?

What are the variables used to identify those indicators?

Will USAID please provide a copy of the KSU Baseline Survey to Offerors?

Response: The Feed the Future Zone of Influence (ZOI) population-based survey collects data on 11 of the 13 Feed the Future indicators. You can find the global ZOI instrument and all related materials at www.feedthefuture.gov/progress and the Ghana-specific instrument has been added to the attachments.

The ZOI population-based survey is implemented by the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Services (METSS) project, which is funded by USAID, and is a University partnership between the United States Department of Agriculture and currently Kansas State University (previously Louisiana State University) and the University of Cape Coast. More information on the ZOI will be available in the near future.

Users could then analyze the FTF PBS indicators and other data in the data set using the Household Hunger Scale and per capita expenditure quartiles as proxies for vulnerability.

Questions on the RCT

9- Page 36, second paragraph, USAID describes the RCT and the Contractor’s responsibility to implement the “4 RTC arms” in selected districts and area councils. With regard to M&E, what will be the relationship and responsibilities between the external impact evaluation provider, the Contractor and the DAs/area councils?

10- Regarding the selection of districts, the project proposes to select districts according to need and likelihood that the program (treatment) will result in a positive change. Will districts be randomly selected for the RCT within the four treatment groups or does USAID expect that districts will be randomly selected to receive the four treatments regardless of need?

11- All area councils, except for those in Chereponi and Saboba, will be categorized into one of four Randomized Control Trial categories, which will determine the level of activity in those area councils?

12- Will the randomization of the Area Councils (AC) to meet the Impact Evaluation treatment categories be done after the initial capacity and needs assessments are completed?

13- Does USAID expect that the RCT will need data that are not included in the baseline surveys already conducted? If so, does USAID expect that the project will collect these data at the onset of the project to supplement the baseline data set?

14- Page 36, Section C.7 states that arm one of the Randomized Control Trial will include “integrated agriculture/economic growth/nutrition activities.” Could USAID clarify if water activities should also be included in arm one, or only in arm three in conjunction with nutrition?

15- What is the anticipated duration of the RCT? The entire 5-year project?

16- Pg. 36, second paragraph. The RFP states that the Contractor ‘must provide systems support to all area councils in the RCT to support sub-component three of RING.” Of the four arms of the RCT, the fourth is ‘no activity’. Is this support also to be provided to those area councils selected for the fourth RCT arm of ‘no activity’? If yes, what would be the incentive for these area councils to participate in technical assistance activities?

17- Pg. 36 provides some detail on the Randomized Control Trial (RCT) process. The central evaluation question #1 (does increasing household assets and access to quality foods and nutrition education result in improved nutritional status of vulnerable populations, especially women and young children, in Northern Ghana?) is based on a number of causal assumptions. Consequently, the methodological approach to the RCT will undoubtedly require close collaboration between the awardee and the RCT contractor not only in its implementation, but also in the survey design itself. How does USAID/Ghana envision collaborating in survey design, data collection, methodological approach other aspects of the RCT process?

18- On page 15, paragraph 1 the RFP states, “what activities will be implemented where will largely be determined by the Randomized Control Trial (RCT)…” Would USAID consider other approaches to selection of area councils that are based upon factors other than randomization?

19- Pg. 36, the central evaluation question #2 (are DAs capable of effectively responding to the on-going needs of vulnerable populations?) is also based on a number of assumptions that require more than an RCT to address effectively. Considering the issue of capability not only as an institutional capacity issue but also a local or regional capacity issue that is also affected by various other intervening variables (operating environment, transportation costs, financial support, linkages to and relationships with national government, etc.), how does USAID/Ghana foresee a mostly quantitative RCT addressing these factors?

20- On page 36, Question 1, “Does increasing household assets and access to foods and nutrition education…..” implies that a combination of agriculture/economic growth and nutrition is needed to achieve the hypothesized outcome of “improved nutritional status.” The four arms of the RCT do not follow from this question. Please kindly clarify. ?

Response to question 9 to 20: The RFP has been amended.

The study design has been an iterative process and it is no longer anticipated that a randomized control trial will be undertaken and the RFP has been amended to reflect the change. The decision not to pursue a randomized control trial means that all RING beneficiaries will receive all interventions. Please note that a study will be undertaken to examine the effect of RING on project beneficiaries. The study questions are still of interest to USAID/Ghana and will likely be pursued in a quasi-experimental design with an imbedded panel study. The study will be funded and carried out by a separate collaborating partner.

Questions on M&E by Contractor

21- Please confirm that USAID anticipates bidders budgeting for “internal” Mid-Term and Final Evaluations separate from but coordinated with those planned by the external impact evaluation provider?

Response: Yes

22- Page 34, Section C.7 RING Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, states that

“Outcome/impact measures such as population-wide changes in nutritional status of children under two years of age can only be measured by large surveys. For RING, these surveys will be conducted by external partners, not the Contractor, to establish baselines and measure impact.” On page 35, the RFP further directly states that “impact evaluations will not be the responsibility of the contractor”.

Please confirm that all outcome and impact level indicators will be measured by an external partner. Please confirm that the funding for monitoring and evaluation of outcome and impact level indicators will come directly from USAID and should not be included in the contractor’s budget for RING.

Response: Correct.

23- Page 37, Section C.7 RING Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, states that midterm and final evaluations will be undertaken and funded externally by USAID. “However the Contractor must undertake a project-specific mid-term and end-term evaluation as is customary.”

How will the external evaluation and the project-funded, project-specific evaluations differ? Will the external evaluation measure indicators included in the RING program’s PMP?

Response: External evaluations are done externally and project-funded and project specific evaluations are done internally. As Section C.7 states, “Outcome/impact measures such as population-wide changes in nutritional status of children under two years of age can only be measured by large surveys. For RING, these surveys will be conducted by external partners, not the Contractor, to establish baselines and measure impact….While the Contractor is not directly responsible for the collection of outcome or impact data, the Contractor must collaborate closely with the external M&E implementers, including METSS and the impact evaluation partner to be determined. The Contractor must track incremental progress and general trends in identifying and addressing livelihood and nutrition needs among vulnerable populations, working through DAs to the maximum degree possible to build DA capacity for M&E.”

The Contractor is responsible for monitoring and reporting on indicators included in the Contractor’s PMP and the project specific and project funded evaluation will likely revolve around these key indicators.

24- Page 34, Section C.7 RING Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, 3rd sub paragraph, states that the contractor will track incremental progress, “working through DAs to the maximum degree possible to build DA capacity for M&E.”

In the spirit of the principle to innovate and enable partners to continue implementation after RING, please confirm that the DAs will be able to use RING program funds to hire additional staff for M&E activities as well as purchase necessary equipment such as motorcycles, GPS equipment, etc. with the funds?

Response: USAID funds may not be used to hire additional staff for Das, or for any GOG entity.

USAID funds may be used to procure equipment required by DA’s to effectively implement RING activities, provided that such expenses are included in DA work plans approved by USAID. That may include motorcycles, GPS equipment and other items necessary to enable the DAs to effectively monitor RING activities.

25- Will the Contractor be required to collect M&E data on each of the performance indicators highlighted on pages 25 to 32 of the RFP? If so, will awardees have an opportunity to work with USAID to establish realistic criteria/proxies by which these indicators may be measured? Has USAID contracted, or does it intend to contract a technical assistance service provider to support the review of indicators and finalization of performance monitoring plans (PMPs)?

Response: A draft PMP is required to be submitted as part of the proposal. However, after award, the contractor and USAID will work together to finalization the most appropriate mix of indicators. USAID doesn’t intend to contract a technical assistance provider to finalize the PMP as the mission possesses the technical capacity in house to undertake this house, as is customary.

26- Will the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Services (METSS) provide technical assistance to the awardee on indicators outside the scope of its existing surveys?

METSS is not expected to provide any technical assistance to the awardee.

27- Pg. 26, the first performance indicator for IR 1c “# Of communities that show positive results in Contractor-supported intervention districts across selected FtF indicators on Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS)” implies that the Contractor will be expected to develop and administer assessments utilizing LQAS to evaluate the trend data suggested on page 35 of the RFP. Such samples will be distinctly different from the samples drawn for the population-based surveys conducted by Kansas State University and Cape Coast University:

Is the Contractor responsible for gathering baseline data for all to-be-conducted LQAS or is the Contractor expected to utilize data from other/pre-existing sources?

Response: It is understood that the LQAS sample is distinctly different from the PBS ZOI sample. The Contractor is responsible for conducting successive LQAS and given that the samples are different, the Contractor is expected to establish the baseline for the LQAS.

Question on USAID assessments of District Assemblies

28- Is this financial risk assessment tool the same or different from the Functional Organization Assessment Tool (FOAT)? Will USAID share the components and criteria comprising the risk assessment tool with the Technical Assistance Partner?

Response: The FOAT is not the tool of the USAID assessment.

29- On Pg. 14, the RFP notes that USAID is conducting an assessment of the financial and management capacities of the 14 Districts. Will USAID share with the bidders the results of that assessment?

30- Pg. 17 paragraph 3 states in part that:

“[The modality of direct financing assistance] will be used when an independent financial risk assessment conducted by USAID shows a DA to be capable of managing direct funding from USAID.”

Have preliminary assessments been undertaken already for DA’s, and if so, are they publicly available? If not, how will this process work and who is engaged to undertake these assessments?

In 2011, Akus Consultants was contracted to carry out assessments of 15 districts in the Northern Region. The Scope of Work and the assessments undertaken from Akus have been added as annexes. At the time USAID Ghana contracted Akus to undertake the assessment of the 15 districts in the North, ADS 220 was in draft form. Unfortunately, USAID was never able to utilize the reports prepared by Akus as they didn’t meet the requirements laid out in final ADS

220. Starting in November of 2011, USAID Ghana has undertaken a series of Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF), which is the tool that USAID uses to assess whether a District Assembly has the financial and management systems in place to manage U.S. government resources well, which is described in the now finalized ADS 220.

31- On page 17: ‘An immediate priority of the Contractor will be to ascertain the relative technical needs and capacity gaps of the NRCC and those DAs receiving direct USAID funding, and provide appropriate technical assistance in close coordination with USAID, the NRCC and FtF partners.’ The RFP states that

USAID expects that 10 DAs will qualify for direct funding from USAID initially. Is it expected by USAID that all 10 DAs will have qualified for direct funding by the start up of the RING project, or is this qualification process expected to be phased through the start up of the project?

Response: Yes. As stated in Section C.4, “Ten DAs are expected to receive funding directly from USAID during the first year…To date, the NRCC and two DAs (Chereponi and Saboba) have qualified for direct funding from USAID.”

32- Pg. 14 Paragraph 2 of the RFP states in part that:

“USAID expects that 10 DAs will qualify for direct funding from USAID initially … while the remaining four DA’s will be supported through Contractor-funded activities until their capacity is increased sufficiently to qualify for direct USAID funding.”

However, 1) page 16 paragraph 6 notes that only two DA’s (Chereponi and Saboba) have actually qualified for direct funding from USAID, 2) Page 16 paragraph 7 notes that Contractor must “provide all required technical assistance to the additional targeted DA’s that have not yet qualified for direct funding from USAID” and 3) Page 17, paragraph 3 notes that 10 DA’s are expected to receive funding directly from USAID during the first year.

Can USAID provide the tool/ methodology/criteria by which it may be determined if a given DA is ready for direct funding?

Can USAID provide an illustrative list of capacity building activities that are typically applied in moving a given DA towards receiving direct funding?

Can USAID clarify exactly how many DA’s will receive direct capacity building assistance (from the Contractor) specifically targeted at management system activities that will allow “graduation” to direct USAID funding?

Response: USAID conducts assessments of prospective government recipients of direct USAID funding per ADS 220, which can be found here:

http://transition.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/220.pdf. DAs that “pass” the ADS 220 assessment qualify for direct USAID funding. As stated in other section of this document, this is called the Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF), which is the tool that USAID uses to assess a host country’s financial and management systems. After a PFMRAF is conducted, the USAID local capacity development team develops recommendations regarding risk tolerance, all of which is documented in ADS 220. USAID Ghana has done over 25 PFMRAF’s in Ghana since 2011, the vast majority of them in the Northern Region and in conjunction with RING.

The Contractor is to propose suitable activities to build the capacity of DAs. As mentioned earlier, USAID’s implementing partner, as well as many other donor across the globe, have a wealth of experience, building capacity in the areas of health, nutrition, economic growth, agriculture, governance, and systems strengthening, which can be found here:

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx. Finally, the Akus reports, newly added to annexes, will likely shed some light on areas that one might want to concentrate on.

33- If 10 of the DAs are expected to be fully qualified to receive USAID direct funding within the first year, is technical support to be provided during the assessment period, after the assessment period, or both?

Response: Technical support should be provided both before and after the assessment period;

however, it is anticipated that the next significant amount of technical support will be required after the assessment period.

Questions on budgets:

34- On page 8, the RFP mentions estimated amounts for technical assistance, grants, sub-contracts and innovative contractor managed activities. Are these maximum or can one propose other amounts?

Response: As stated in Section C.2, the estimated amounts are “estimates.”

35- Furthermore, to more appropriately estimate the extent of technical assistance required in Year 1, what is estimated dollar value of direct USAID funding per DA in Year 1?

Response: USAID Ghana hasn’t undertaken this activity yet in any district so it isn’t possible to provide this information.

Questions on Contractor support to DAs.

36- Pg. 21, last paragraph: The RFP states “….the Contractor will provide logistical….support.” Are there limits to the provision of logistical support? With the funds that USAID anticipates providing directly to the DAs, and by extension the Contractor, does USAID anticipate procurement of vehicles and their necessary support costs (fuel, maintenance, etc.)?

Response: USAID does anticipate that the Contractor will provide support logistic support to DA's in clear support of program objectives, namely decreasing underweight and stunting through increasing livelihoods and resiliency. It is expected that the DA's will include requests for motorbikes and other logistics support in their workplans and approved by USAID. USAID would prefer that the Contractor handle the procurement of motorbikes while the DA's be responsible for routine procurements (fuel, maintenance). The procurement of vehicles is not anticipated at this time. As always, support provided to DAs and the NRCC must follow USAID regulations and U.S law.

37- Page 8, Section C.2, Objectives, last paragraph: The RFP states: “The anticipated overall budget… would include… an estimated cost in the range of $24 to $27 million for technical assistance provided by the Contractor to the DAs and the NRCC.” Does technical assistance to the DA include technical assistance to Area Councils, Communities, Line Ministry Staff, village savings and loan associations, i.e. all the relevant and diverse structures which operate at district level?

Response: Section C.4 states, “The Contractor must assure that sufficient technical assistance is provided to the NRCC, all targeted DAs (including those directly funded by USAID), area councils, and beneficiary communities for sound technical decision making and effective implementation of RING activities….

The Contractor must collaborate closely with USAID, the NRCCs and the DAs to develop appropriate and customized packages of interventions for each area council, out of the appropriate combination of proven interventions described in Section III below.

Because community action groups are community-specific, no specific groups have been identified as strategic partners at this time. However, once the area councils are identified, the DA, in collaboration with USAID and technical assistance from the Contractor, will work closely with the area councils and community groups to strengthen social support networks.

Examples of potential partners include: water groups, mother to mother groups, local NGOs, credit and savings groups, PTAs, farmers groups, and religious groups.”

Questions on other technical issues

38- On page 24 the RFP mentions that “NGOs and cooperatives (e.g. credit unions), are registered but not licensed by the central bank, so they are not legally permitted to accept deposits.” While this is accurate for NGOs and MFIs, credit unions in Ghana and elsewhere around the world are legally permitted to mobilize savings and have been doing that for many years in Ghana. Please confirm that statement was geared toward NGOs and not Credit Unions

Response: Yes. Please see amendment regarding mobilization of deposits by members.

39- Regarding IR 1a on page 25, does USAID support the principle of using RING resources to serve as “guarantor” or provide Technical Assistance to persuade MFI and commercial lending institutions to increase loan portfolio to RING target districts?

Response: We would welcome Technical Assistance to persuade MFIs and other loan institutions to increase loan portfolio in RING areas in close collaboration with other Feed the Future projects that may be providing similar types of Technical Assistance. Further, USAID will provide the guarantor resources for this Development Credit Authority directly as it has for the two existing DCA’s that will benefit RING beneficiaries.

40- On page 15 it says that RING will focus on women of reproductive age and children under two years. However, the Mission impact indicators related to nutritional status are focused on children under five (for the reasons explained on p. 23). Will the independent partner measuring impact (p. 34) measure changes in nutritional status of children under two or under five?

Response: Yes. While the focus group for nutrition interventions are children under two and pregnant and lactating women, the impact of those interventions on nutritional status is measured on children under five to capture the effect on all children reached during the five-year intervention period. Measuring nutritional status only of children under two at end line would miss the effect of the intervention on, for example, a four-year old who benefited from the intervention during the first few years of the project.

41- Will the impact evaluation that assesses changes resulting from RING also measure micronutrient status of the target groups (e.g. anemia)?

Response: Yes.

Questions on the budget

42- Section C.2. of the RFP, p. 8-9, breaks out the anticipated overall budget for RING interventions. Can we propose working with local NGOs under a GUC mechanism out of the $24M-$27M designated for technical assistance to DAs and the NRCC?

Response: Section C.2 includes “estimates” not ceilings. “An estimated cost in the range of $24 and $27 million for technical assistance provided by the Contractor to DAs and the NRCC;…An estimated $1 million for grants to local NGOs including the private sector under a GUC mechanism, managed by the Contractor in districts in which DAs are not yet eligible for direct funding from USAID.”

43- In Section C.4.