SOL-641-12-000005_Amendment_No._4.pdf

SOL‐641‐12‐000005, Amendment No. 4

Section C:

1- Section C, INCLUDE Acronyms.

2- Section C.4 (p. 16), DETAILED WORK STATEMENT, DELETE: 14 DAs

And REPLACE with the following: 17 DAs

3- Section C.5, p.23 ADD bullet in first paragraph under “RING is designed to contribute to the following USAID/Ghana Feed the Future goals.”

20% decrease in anemia among CU5

4- Section C.5, p. 23 DELETE “The Contractor must provide technical assistance to RING partners (DAs and counterparts at community level) in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the activities and interventions for the results for each of the RING components.”

And REPLACE with:

“The Contractor must provide technical assistance to RING partners (DAs and counterparts at community level) in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the activities and interventions for the results for each of the RING components. This will include disaggregating many performance indicators by gender.”

5- Section C.5, p. 24, DELETE second bullet under “For savings of other assets:

Improved community level storage facilities.”

And REPLACE with:

“Improved community (or household) level storage facilities.”

6- Section C.5, p. 25, DELETE entire section Intermediate Result 1a: Increased access to savings and credit among target households.“ Illustrative Activities/Interventions Increase access … and identify lessons learned and best practices.”

“Intermediate Result 1a: Increased access to savings and credit among target households.

Illustrative Activities/Interventions

Increase access to savings and credit through informal structures (such as the “village savings and loan associations”) that are perceived as ‘low risk’ and require small upfront money1 by establishing or strengthening community-based savings and loans groups, especially in geographic areas with limited access to other options.

Facilitate development of or strengthen community-based (or household level) seed or grain banks to bolster household self-insurance strategy.

Facilitate access to external assistance, when needed, such as social safety nets.

Leverage the USAID-funded and other development partner supported financial and credit programming to ensure harmonization of messages and identify lessons learned and best practices.”

7- Section C.5, p. 25-26, DELETE entire section Intermediate Result 1b: Increased access to savings and credit among target households. “ Illustrative Activities/Interventions, Promote production …vegetables.”

And REPLACE with:

“Intermediate Result 1b: Increased diversification of income throughout the year among target households

Illustrative Activities/Interventions

Promote production of cowpeas, shea nuts, poultry (guinea fowl), small ruminants, vegetables or other nutritionally important and/or marketable products that do not require large land areas and are largely within female domain.

Increase access to physical inputs to directly support income generation efforts of communities and households, taking into account their resources, skill sets and interests. Access to inputs may be supported through a voucher scheme or similar process, through small grants, or by funding community action plans.

Support linkages to local suppliers and markets to increase income throughout year.

Provide training or group-based learning to disseminate knowledge and understanding of best practices in horticulture, small animal husbandry, and other alternative livelihoods.

Introduce drip irrigation techniques in rural areas which would enable dry season farming of maize, soy and vegetables.

1 While RING funds may be used to promote increased access to credit through technical support, RING funds will not be used for actual capitalization of finance or loan schemes.

Assist water user associations in designing and implementing diverse supplemental irrigation and rainwater harvesting systems and piloting and applying appropriate conservation agriculture techniques.”

8- Section C.7, RING MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN, p. 34, DELETE

“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.”

And REPLACE with:

“While the Contractor is not directly responsible for the collection of outcome or impact data, the Contractor is responsible for the periodic collection of data for progress performance indicators, in close coordination with the DAs. The Contractor must also collaborate closely with the external M&E implementers, including METSS and the impact evaluation partner.”

9- Section C.7, RING MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN, P. 36, DELETE:

“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?”

And REPLACE with:

“The central question to be evaluated is:

‐ What is the contribution of income growth strategies and consumption smoothing strategies to reducing vulnerability and improving nutrition?”

10- Section C.7, RING MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN, P. 37, REMOVE:

Entire section entitled “Rigorous Impact Evaluation”

“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. The three year impact evaluation will be conducted in approximately 35 communities within each of the four-six districts. The impact evaluation will evaluate the relative impact of income generating vs. income smoothing activities, complemented by support for WASH, nutrition and good governance.

It is vitally important that the Contractor describe and implement a system for continuous communication with both METSS and the 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.

The impact evaluation partner will identify approximately 35 communities within each of the four to six districts for the impact evaluation. The communities will be randomly assigned within districts to one of four treatment arms:

1. RING-Income: Income generating, WASH, intensive nutrition, and good governance activities;

2. RING-Smoothing: Income smoothing, WASH, intensive nutrition, and good governance activities;

3. RING-Full: Both income generating and smoothing, WASH, intensive nutrition and good governance activities;

4. RING-Lite: Limited large event and/or mass-market nutrition messaging that is occurring region-wide (as opposed to household level intensive nutrition activities), access to credit through a DCA, and good governance activities.

Within the communities selected for the impact evaluation, USAID and the impact evaluation partner will determine which RING activities are to be implemented, in order to learn which kinds and combinations of activities are most effective. The impact evaluation partner will provide training to DAs and the Contractor on how to implement these approaches to ensure uniformity. The Contractor must work closely with the impact evaluation partner to support the implementation of these approaches as directed in the target communities, so that the impact evaluation can be conducted.

After the three-year impact evaluation is completed, all communities will receive the RING-Full treatment.”

11- As a result of Amendment 1 and this amendment, attached is a revised Section C.

12- Section D. Past Performance on page 99, first sentence, second paragraph “Offerors should note that the narrative section described below is limited to 1 page per contract”, DELETE “1 page” and REPLACE with “2 pages.”

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

Proposal Specifics:

1) May tables, charts exhibits and text boxes be smaller than 12 point font?

Answer: Yes.

2) Will USAID accept electronic copies of technical and cost proposals sent by emails or are both hard copies and electronic copies required?

Answer: This was already answered in Amendment 1. Both electronic and hard copies must be received by the closing date and time.

3) Would USAID waive the requirement for references for key personnel to include fax information?

Answer: Yes.

4) In response to questions regarding past performance, page 29 of the Amendment makes reference to a revision to page 99 of the original RFP but no revision was provided (for example, "delete Section D. Past Performance").

Answer: Past performance on page 99 remains the same, except the first sentence of the second paragraph (see this amendment). USAID includes Part II of the Past Performance Form (blank) and will permit two pages per PPR for each reference to allow for adequate discussion of the Title/Brief Description of Product/Service Provided.

5) Attachment 5 to the Request for Proposal is the “Application for Defense Act Insurance”. Please could you clarify this requirement for insurance that contracting firms needs to have? And do firms need to have/procure this insurance before sending in their proposals?

Answer: Please refer to page 66 of the original solicitation. Firms do not procure this insurance before sending their proposals. The selected contractor must procure this insurance after award.

Contractual:

6) How will USAID distribute the contractor’s funds?

Answer: This is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee reimbursement, per the contract.

7) From Amendment/Modification #1, regarding Attachment 22, FSN Salary LCP Ghana: What is the effective date for this Local Compensation Plan? Can you confirm that the USG contributes GHC 11,700 per year/family for each staff member toward health insurance? Does USAID encourage contractors to provide a comparable package?

Answer: This is the current Local Compensation Plan. The GHC 11,700 is the ceiling for reimbursement, but not maximum premium for health insurance per family. We provided a copy based on request from potential offerors. However, it is at the offerors discretion to use or not use this plan.

8) From Amendment/Modification #1, regarding Attachment 18, FTF Environmental Examination

Request for Categorical Exclusion: Was this request approved? What impact does this request have in regard to RFP page 101 “Contractors must reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal”?

Answer: The FTF Economic Growth IEE was approved and the signatures appear on page 11 (second of two page 11s) of Attachment 18. Offerors must reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal in keeping with the environmental issues described in the IEE.

9) Must the DAs abide by the same rules and regulations for spending USG funds as contractors?

Answer: Most rules and limitations will be the same but there will be some minor differences.

Ultimately, USAID expects that the Government of Ghana has strong policies in place and that the districts and NRCC follow Ghana’s rules with some exceptions that USAID will make explicit in our direct agreements with District Assemblies and other Government of Ghana entities with whom we engage directly.

Procurement:

10) Will USAID confirm that it does not intend funding for motorbikes to come out of the Contractor’s project budget; rather, the Contractor would handle the procurement paperwork, with funding coming from other sources?

The answer for question 36 (page 20) of the Amendment states "USAID would prefer that the contractor handle the procurement of motorbikes while the DA's be responsible for routine procurement (fuel and maintenance)". For those USAID-direct funded DAs, is this procurement from funds directly received from USAID as part of the DA work plans or is it from the Contractor's Technical Assistance budget?

Based on information provided at the RING Pre-Proposal Conference, it appears that contractors are expected to provide certain equipment (vehicles; IT hardware and software; etc.) and other resources to District Assemblies that have not qualified for direct funding from USAID. Are these procurements expected to be in-kind, procured using contractor funds? If the procurements are in-kind, how would USAID prefer contractors to budget for such procurements—as part of project activities, the DA subcontracts fund, ODCs, etc.?

Answer:

For districts directly funded by USAID:

For directly-funded districts, USAID confirms that it does not intend funding for motorbikes or IT hardware and software to come out of the Contractor’s project budget. The Contractor will assist, as needed, with procurement paperwork.

For districts receiving USAID support through this contract:

It is expected that for those districts not receiving USAID funds directly, the contractor will budget for procurement as part of the technical assistance provided. USAID does not expect that vehicles will be provided to districts, though motorbikes may be provided as needed. USAID doesn’t have a preference for how the activities are presented; however, the subcontracts line item should not be utilized to budget for the activities.

11) Will USAID provide contractors with a plug figure to use for budgeting purposes that cover such procurements as described above?

Answer: Much of this will depend on the Offerors technical approach to the districts, as well as the specific needs of each district, so no plug figure is currently available for use.

12) Previous question 36 in Amendment Number 1 - 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.)?

Revised Answer: USAID does anticipate that the Contractor will provide logistical support to DAs to achieve program objectives. It is expected that the DA's receiving direct funding from USAID will include requests for motorbikes and other logistical support in their work plans, as approved by USAID. USAID prefers that for those receiving indirect funding from USAID through this Contract, that the Contractor handle the procurement of motorbikes while the DA's will be responsible for routine procurements (fuel, maintenance, etc.). 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.

Collaboration and Coordination

13) Can USAID provide a list of planned technical projects in Ghana in addition to those ongoing with which RING implementer may collaborate?

Answer: Possibilities to collaborate may exist with ongoing USAID activities in the Northern Region including Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (ADVANCE) which focuses on three target value chains (rice, maize and soya), and certain health sector activities such as the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA III) which supports the Ghana Health Services throughout Ghana by integrating and scaling up community-based management of acute malnutrition services, supplies and logistics systems, and the Behavioral Change Support Project which works with the Ministry of Health and Ghana Health Service and national partners to improve behavior change communication related to relevant health issues. There will likely be a number of other/new USAID projects in the Northern Region during the five year RING implementation period, as well as activities by other donors, and the Contractor will be expected to collaborate and coordinate with all relevant programs in the area.

14) What kind of coordination and support will current USAID programs such as ADVANCE be able to provide to RING?

Answer: Potential for collaboration with ADVANCE exists, but ADVANCE is not responsible for providing support or coordination for RING.

15) How will the Feed the Future (FtF) program coordinate with RING?

Answer: RING is an important part of the FTF program. Being part of FTF and part of a larger USAID mission often requires a delicate balance of coordination. USAID created a satellite office in Tamale to work across FTF and the entire USAID Mission to Ghana. Integrated Regional and District work plans across implementing partners are envisaged to ensure maximum coordination and to avoid duplication in the Northern Region.

To reiterate, RING is the principal FtF project for achieving IR 2: Improved Resilience of Vulnerable Communities and an important contributor to achieving IR 3: Improved Nutritional Status of Women and Children. Additionally, RING is an important complementary effort to achieve IR 1: Increased Competitiveness of Major Food Value Chains (rice, maize, soya, fisheries). RING’s targeted economic growth and agriculture activities will be focused around value chains that are traditionally female-controlled and have higher profit margins, with a cost benefit analysis indicating favorable short, medium, and long term profit potential.

The distinction between IRs is important because RING targets the most vulnerable households – the very poor producers - in the Northern Region where poverty and under-nutrition are concentrated.

These most vulnerable households are known to produce in such small quantities and with irregular quantity and quality such that buyers may not be as interested in making efforts to purchase from them. Moreover, experience shows that many very poor producers have not been trained to do basic pricing, accounting, or ordering that permits them to participate in the major food value chains. As such, RING will link the very small producers to businesses, encourage mutually beneficial repeat transactions, and support higher profits on what is sold, but will take smaller steps to build capacity in the very small producers and generate business confidences. RING does not intend to work at the producer level or in producer group formation in the male-dominated value chains of the three main crops in Ghana (rice, maize, soya), as this is part of ADVANCE’s bailiwick, but will leverage FtF’s value chains, commercialization, policy and finance work, when appropriate.

As noted in the RFP, “Due to constrained household resources and diminished capacity to take on risks, these households may not be ready to participate and/or immediately benefit from the larger, commercially oriented value chain approaches of IR 1, focused on staple crops. RING will accelerate the participation of the most vulnerable households in rural growth. RING will align also with other health investments (USAID and non-USAID) to increase access to quality maternal and child health services, as well as improved water and sanitation, as indicated for IR 3. RING will build upon the potential synergies between IR 1 and IR 2, as appropriate, to meet community needs and priorities.”

16) Will other FtF interventions be implemented at the same time as RING?

Answer: New procurements are anticipated in both health and economic growth; however, USAID is not able to announce them at this time. At noted at the pre-proposal conference, it is anticipated that FtF interventions will be implemented within the same time period as RING.

17) Key collaborators are listed in the RFP, but potentially important stakeholders such as the Ministry of Environment and certain local research institutions are not on the list. Why not?

Answer: USAID did not intend to make a list of all potential collaborators, though the anticipated membership of the RING Steering Committee is listed. However, it is expected that bidders will seek out a diverse set of partners to collaborate on their proposals.

18) Concern was raised with the number of interventions that a DA might be implementing, in addition to RING, and possibilities of duplication of efforts. Is there a mechanism to coordinate all interventions in the selected districts? Will USAID create a group to manage this in the Northern Region?

Answer: No. USAID expects the Contractor to work through the NRCC and the DAs to avoid duplication of efforts. The Contract is expected to support existing district and regional planning processes, rather than create a new coordination group, to avoid duplicating efforts.

Risk Assessment and Mitigation

19) How did USAID reconcile the AKUS and PFMRAF methodologies?

Answer: USAID reviewed the AKUS reports, and USAID’s financial analysts conducted our own assessments, per the PFMRAF requirements, to follow up on gaps and other questions that were raised in the AKUS reports.

20) Are the additional assessment supplemental reports prepared by the USAID financial analysts in the public domain?

Answer: No, but these may be made available to the Contractor.

21) Have the split districts been assessed?

Answer: The newly split districts will be assessed in the near future.

22) Previous question 30 in Amendment Number 1 – 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?

Revised Answer: 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 Northern Region, ADS 220 was in draft form. Once ADS 220 was finalized, USAID cross-referenced the Akus reports’ methodology with the ADS 220 requirements and sent USAID staff to follow up on gaps and to clarify certain issues. To date, the Akus work has been supplemented by USAID follow-up in eight districts. USAID used these reports as the basis of the assessments but did not rely solely on these reports. Starting in November of 2011, USAID Ghana has followed the ADS 220 guidelines and has utilized the Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) Stage 2 Questionnaire, which is the tool that USAID uses to assess whether a government entity has the financial and management systems in place to manage U.S. government resources.

23) Is the contractor responsible for implementing the individual monitoring plans related to risk mitigation?

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for providing all needed support to the DA’s for implementation, monitoring and reporting on activities. This includes risk mitigation activities.

24) What are the greatest deficiencies seen in the District Assemblies?

Answer: Some of the larger challenges facing District Assemblies are managerial in nature, followed by procurement at the community level and the lack of management of the districts by the regional authorities.

25) Will USAID provide a copy of the actual assessment tool/methodology it uses to approve DAs for direct funding (PFMRAF)?

Answer: The PFMRAF is a five step process, not an assessment tool, per se. The process and methodology is explained in ADS 220, which is in the public domain. As mentioned at the pre-proposal conference, the PFMRAF Stage 2 risk assessment guidance and questionnaire, although not in the public domain, is based on identifying, rating, and ranking the impact and probability of risks related to public financial management, such as financial transparency, accounting and reporting, procurement, financial management operations including audit functions and cash management, budget execution, legal and regulatory frameworks, human resources management, performance management, and ICT. Finally, participants at the pre-proposal conference were referenced to seek out the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) tool, which is similar to the PFMRAF and the presentation on Aid Effectiveness has been uploaded, which contains information on the PFMRAF.

26) Will USAID share a copy of the District Assemblies’ work plans and budgets it has funded with the two DAs receiving direct funding?

Answer: USAID is not inclined to share the DAs’ work plans and budgets at this time. The brief work plans that have been established wouldn’t assist in the formulation of the bidders’ proposal, as they primarily include activities for the development of the districts’ first annual work plan.

27) Will USAID share a copy of the agreement [implementation letters] signed with the two districts?

Answer: USAID is not inclined to share the implementation letters signed with the two districts.

USAID considers that these documents are sub-obligating documents and does not believe they would assist in the formulation of the bidders’ proposal because they primarily authorize activities to support the districts in developing their first annual work plan.

Targeting:

28) We seek clarification regarding USAID’s expectation for how the RING project should target individuals. Should targeting be done by community classification, or by gender and age (such as women and children under age five)? Or is the expectation that RING focus on communities, and target through the selection of project activities?

Answer: As noted in the RFP, all of the RING project partners will focus on the poorest households that have women of reproductive age and children under two years who are identified as vulnerable.

The NRCC plans to hold workshops to train DA staff on how to identify the target populations, using an approach that the Northern Region Ministry of Social Welfare is developing, which is being adapted from the Common Targeting Mechanism approach. Within the population of the selected district assemblies, the interventions intend to meet the nutrition and hygiene education and livelihood needs of these identified vulnerable populations, but may also include older children and other family members, including men, who affect many critical household decisions.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

29) Regarding the four arms of the impact evaluation, will the impact evaluation partner and USAID determine before the award the “list/menu” of interventions of each arm and then inform winning bidder?

Answer: Yes. USAID will decide the “list/menu” of interventions on January 2013 for all 17 DAs before the contract is awarded and USAID will communicate this to the winning bidder and to the DAs receiving direct funding from USAID.

30) Will USAID provide the requirements of the DA monitoring and evaluation plans?

Answer: As noted in the RFP, the contractor is responsible for supporting DAs in M&E by establishing and building capacity to conduct on-going monitoring of RING activities at the district and community levels, which will likely include a performance monitoring system to track progress in achieving RING results. The two initial districts have not yet developed M&E plans, as the initial work plans are planning grants to develop the annual work plan.

31) What are USAID’s expectations in terms of data collection and monitoring by DA personnel?

Answer: As stated in the RFP, under both funding (direct and indirect) modalities the Contractor must provide technical assistance and logistical support as needed to the NRCC and DAs for processes and systems to manage the overall performance of RING activities, including “setting up and building capacity to conduct on-going monitoring of RING activities at the NRCC, district, and community levels” and “develop[ing] and implement[ing] a performance monitoring system that will track progress in achieving all of the results of the Contractor activities.” The Contractor must ensure that all activities and support under RING will be implemented with approaches that develop RING’s key Ghanaian partners’ capacity to plan, implement, manage, and monitor the program.

32) How will RING’s M&E link to that of existing donor support and that of the Government of Ghana given the four arms of the impact evaluation criteria predetermined by USAID RING?

How would RING ensure sustainability and effectiveness given the eractic [erratic] nature of government functionaries to the DAs as RING is 100% divorce[d] of government funding and initiative for effectiveness?

Answer: Given RING’s integrated approach and local systems strengthening component, a robust M&E approach is essential to achieve sustained results. The Contractor is expected to work with the NRCC, DAs and communities to develop and implement on-going monitoring systems to track progress in reaching component results, sub-purposes, and the overall purpose of the RING project.

The NRCC, specifically the Regional Planning and Coordination Unit (RPCU), and DAs will participate with the Contractor and USAID in the development, implementation and utilization of this on-going monitoring system for RING and provide timely feedback on its functionality and needed adjustments. Importantly, the RPCU and DAs will be important users of the information to assess and adjust programming to assure that anticipated results are achieved. They will also gain competencies as managers and users of the system so that the system will continue to inform programming after the end of the RING project period.

33) Will the impact evaluation use a counterfactual and obtain baseline data?

Answer: Yes.

34) Are interventions related to sanitation/access to water envisioned in all IE arms?

Answer: No. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) activities will be fully implemented in the RING-Full, RING-Income Generation, and RING-Income Smoothing arms of the IE, but not in the RING-Lite arm (see Amendment #5). No RING-specific WASH activities will be implemented in RING-Lite.

Similarly, nutrition activities will be implemented fully in all of the IE arms except for RING-Lite, which will only have nutrition activities that are being done region-wide through mass events or mass media (as opposed to targeted, household level, intensive nutrition interventions that will occur in the other RING IE arms). Good governance will be promoted in all districts, supporting the NRCC and DAs with planning, budgeting, logistics, M&E, etc.

35) What does RING-lite look like?

Answer: RING Lite is the counterfactual and will serve as the comparison group; no livelihood or WASH interventions, but will include access to credit via DCAs, good governance work, and limited nutrition activities (mass events and mass media as described in question 34). USAID will randomly assign some communities to receive RING-Lite. After the 3 year IE process, all IE arms will receive the RING-Full treatment. USAID will randomly assign communities to each IE arm.

36) Will USAID do an attribution analysis for the IE?

Answer: Obviously the Northern Region is a complex environment within which to work. USAID will work with the implementation partner of the impact evaluation to elaborate an analysis plan to take ongoing development interventions in the Northern Region into account.

37) Who monitors the effectiveness of DAs’efforts? Is this the role of the new USAID satellite office?

Answer: USAID Ghana, both in Accra and Tamale will serve as liasions with the Government of Ghana, which is a typical USAID role. The Northern Regional Coordinating Council (NRCC) will also play a role in monitoring the implementation of the DA’s as will the Contractor who has a primary role in the monitoring of all RING activities.

38) Will USAID please provide the Multiple Indicator Cluster Results (MICS) data distributed on CD at the RING Pre-Proposal Conference to Offerors as an attachment?

Answer: Yes, MICS data is attached as an Annex.

39) Has the Zone of Influence Population Based Survey been completed and will it be released?

Answer: Yes, the ZOI has been completed but USAID has not had a chance to review it and doesn’t anticipate releasing it before the closing date of RING.

District Assemblies:

40) What is the distribution plan for USAID RING funds to eligible Districts? How will USAID decide the amount and frequency of fund transfers to eligible Districts?

Answer: USAID will decide the amount and frequency of fund transfers to eligible Districts based upon work plans and budgets with each district that are mutually elaborated and approved by USAID after discussions with the NRCC RPCU. For the first two approved districts, USAID requested a first quarter work plan focused on the development of a yearly work plan and budget. The first tranche of funds will be distributed by quarter for these first two districts, based on the quarterly work plan. This will likely be the case for the next four districts to receive direct funding by USAID. Subsequently, once annual work plans are in place, USAID plans a quarterly disbursement process to the NRCC and DAs, based on the the approved work plan budgets.

41) The contractor is expected to build capacity in the DA staff. Do the DAs have adequate staff?

Answer: Adequate staff appears to be in place to implement RING activities, but DAs are encouraged to contract out for services with local NGOs or with the private sector. Staffing of the DAs is the responsibility of the Government of Ghana and USAID funds shall not be used to pay government staff salaries (although secondment of staff from the Contractor to DAs or the NRCC may be allowed, if approved by USAID).

42) Will USAID use RING funds to hire additional staff?

Answer: No.

43) Page 14 of the RFP discusses direct funded and indirect funded districts. Which are these districts by name? There may be an implication for costs, case district write-ups, etc..

Answer: Risk assessments and risk mitigation processes are still in process for all but the two initial districts and final approval has not yet been authorized for any other districts, so USAID cannot yet identify districts by name, especially as the Government of Ghana has not yet been notified.

44) Re: Page 7, first bullet of the replacement text of the Amendment Q&A - where does USAID anticipate the source of funding for the "50% increase in funding to local activities that directly support improved livelihoods and nutrition for vulnerable households " Is this increase a result of DAs reprioritizing funds to these sectors from current budgets/sources of funds or is it a result of new money (RING)?

Answer: USAID expects DAs to include these activities in the DAs’ work plans and budgets.

45) Will USAID inform contractors how many DAs they anticipate the contractor to be responsible for funding at the start of the RING project so that procurements can be appropriately budgeted?

From the RFP Amendment 1 we understand that RING will work with 17 DAs of which “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.” What was the main criteria used by USAID to select directly funded and Contractor-assisted DAs? Could USAID please tell us which of the 17 DAs will be directly assisted and which will be indirectly assisted?

Answer: It is premature to release the names of the districts. To date, only two districts have been approved to receive direct funding from USAID. Eight more districts are in the “active phase” of the assessment and mitigation process, but have not received authorization through the regular USAID processes for direct funding from USAID.

46) Can USAID explain the different types of funding mentioned on page 8 of the RFP?

Answer: As noted in the RFP, $3 million is estimated for innovative grants to give the contractor opportunities to develop and implement innovative activities that are not necessarily in the list of illustrative activities to achieve RING goals. USAID estimates that $1 million will be available for grants to local NGOs and entities in the private sector that will be managed by the Contractor in districts in which DAs are not yet eligible for direct funding from USAID. An estimated $1 million for sub-contracts will go to DAs that do not yet qualify for direct USAID funding, managed by the Contractor. The $3 million was set aside to fund innovative projects, but also to send a signal that USAID values science and innovation as an integral part of RING.

47) What will be the role of the winning bidder with districts re: DAs receiving direct funding from

USAID?

Answer: The winning bidder must provide technical assistance to these DAs as needed to achieve targeted results.

48) Who funds additional technical assistance to the DAs, the DAs or the contractor?

Answer: As noted during the pre-proposal conference, the definition of technical assistance is constantly evolving. For the purposes of the solicitation, it is expected that the Offeror will provide targeted technical assistance and expertise to DA’s as needed in both the direct and indirect districts.

49) Does USAID anticipate RING strengthening the capacity of all Area Councils in each of the target districts?

Answer: Yes, provided that this is part of the DA’s work plans.

50) How should the contractor deal with the risk of a wholesale change of staff that might come after the election in a district?

Answer: All USAID projects rely on GoG systems and staff in some significant way and changing of staff is inevitable. It is hoped that by strengthening systems, sustainability will be achieved. However, the Contractor will need to rebuild relationships and in some cases, build the capacity of the new staff to work with the enhanced systems that have been created as a result of RING.

51) Will USAID temper its emphasis on meeting deliverables and goals since DAs with known deficiencies will be implementing the interventions?

Answer: No, USAID expects that the Contractor will provide support for good governance at the same time as the programmatic interventions. Capacity should be built while the interventions achieve results.

52) Is the contractor responsible for the government’s actions in terms of building capacity?

Answer: Yes, milestones are and will be built into the implementing letters and the contractor is responsible to support the DAs for achievement of these milestones.

53) According to the RFP, USAID used the FOAT tool to assist select the districts. Will RING reinforce the capabilities that might have been lost since FOAT was performed in these districts?

Answer: Generally speaking, USAID balanced a district’s need with its capacity to implement and manage USAID funds. The 17 districts selected for RING were chosen based on a number of factors including their magnitude of under-nutrition among women and children in their areas, prevalence of extreme poverty, potential for co-location with other USAID FtF activities (i.e. ADVANCE), and the Functional Organization Assessment Tool (FOAT) assessment of 2010. USAID also sought out input from other donors with experience in the Northern Region, plus other data, to select the RING districts. Capacity shifts in districts are expected with the periodic movement of key staff. PFMRAFs will be conducted annually to update USAID’s knowledge of the districts’ management capacity.

Generally, to select the districts USAID balanced a district’s need with its capacity to implement and manage USAID funds and report back. USAID expects the districts that will receive indirect funding to graduate by the end of five years, with the contractor’s support. Capacity shifts in districts are expected with the periodic movement of key staff.

54) Is there a mechanism to engage governmental authorities to maintain successful RING processes and systems?

Answer: The Contractor has a major responsibility for building the capacity of the NRCC and the DAs so that successful RING processes are sustained beyond the life of the project. USAID will continue to advocate for evidence-based programming, and the USAID satellite office in Tamale may be involved in that process. The NRCC has a number of different avenues in which it coordinates development activities in the Northern Region and the Contractor will be expected to participate in any fora to which the NRCC invites them. Finally, the RING Steering Committee may include the Contractor as an Observing Member.

Other

55) What will be the functions of the USAID Office in Tamale versus the USAID office in Accra?

Answer: The USAID satellite office in Tamale is expected to begin operations in the spring of 2013.

Anticipated functions include financial analysis and follow up to the risk mitigation measures and technical and logistical support to USAID interventions in the north of Ghana, including the Northern Region, to be determined.

[END OF RFP AMENDMENT No. 4]