LAVI_RFP-_Amendment_2_Final-04222015.pdf

7. ISSUED BY CODE

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

SOLICITATION

9. Sealed offers in original and copies for furnishings the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in item 8, or if hand carried, in the depository located in See Cover Letter and Section L until local time

(Hour) (Date) CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

PART I - THE SCHEDULE PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM I CONTRACT CLAUSES 58

B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 5 PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH.

C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT 9 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 75

D PACKAGING AND MARKING 26 PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 28

K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER

STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS 76

F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 28

G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 36 L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 88

H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 41 M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 104

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within 1 5 0 calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

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

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

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO. DATE AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15A. NAME AND

ADDRESS

OF OFFER-

OR

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

(Type or print)

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

DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER SUCH

ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

17. SIGNATURE 18. OFFER DATE

AREA CODE NUMBER EXT.

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

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

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) 41 U.S.C. 253 (c)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

(4 copies unless otherwise specified) ITEM

G.7

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

Controller’s Office USAID/Liberia, c/o US Embassy 502 Benson Street, 1000 Monrovia 10, Liberia

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Gerald T. Smith

27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Signed copy in file

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

28. AWARD DATE

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

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

Previous edition is unusable

STANDARD FORM 33 (REV,. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA - Far (48 CFR) 53.214 (c)

U.S. Agency for International Development c/o US Embassy Monrovia , 502 Benson St.

1000 Monrovia, 10 Liberia

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

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 7900)

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

1 107

2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER

SOL-669-15-000014

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

5. DATE ISSUED

03/19/2015

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

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

10. FOR

INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME

Edward S. Lamin

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

elamin@usaid.gov

AREA CODE

NUMBER

776777000

EXT.

SOL-669-15-000014 LAVI

Table Of Contents

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

B.1. PURPOSE

B.2. CONTRACT TYPE

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

B.4. BUDGET

B.5. INDIRECT COSTS

B.6. CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS

B.7. COST REIMBURSABLE

B.8. PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

B.9. MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 PURPOSE

C.2 BACKGROUND

C.3 SERVICES AND TASKS REQUIRED

C.4 GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION CONSIDERATIONS

C.5 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1. 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

D.2. BRANDING POLICY

D.3. MARKING AND BRANDING STRATEGY

D.4 BRANDING IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKING PLAN

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1. NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

E.2. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1. NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

F.2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

F.3. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

F.4. REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES

F.5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

F.6. 752.242-70 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS (OCT 2007)

F.7. 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE

DOCUMENTS (SEPTEMBER 2013)

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.1. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICE

G.2. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S AUTHORITY

G.3. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

G.4. TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIP WITH USAID

G.5. CONTRACTOR’S PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT

G.6. 752.7003 DOCUMENTATION FOR PAYMENT (NOV 1998)

G.7. PAYING OFFICE

G.8. INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS

G.9. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

H.1. AIDAR 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007)

H.2. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION

H.3. 752.225-70 SOURCE AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012) (CLASS

DEVIATION NO. OAA-DEV-12-01C)

H.4. 752.7004 EMERGENCY LOCATOR INFORMATION (JUL 1997)

H.5. SUBCONTRACTING

H.6. REQUESTS FOR CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT

H.7. INSURANCE AND SERVICES

H.8. 752.228-70 MEDICAL EVACUATION (MEDEVAC) SERVICES (JULY 2007)

H.9. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

H.10. AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

H.11. LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

H.12. AUTHORIZED WORK WEEK

H.13. CONFIDENTIALITY AND OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

H.14. 752.7034 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLAIMER (DEC 1991)

H.15. 752.231-71 SALARY SUPPLEMENTS FOR HG EMPLOYEES (OCT 1998)

H.16. EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM FINANCING

H.17. FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

(JAN 2002)

H.18. REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES (July 2007)

H.19. USAID DISABILITY POLICY - ACQUISITION (DEC 2004)

H.20. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

H.21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

H.22. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT – IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES

H.23. AIDAR 752.7032 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS (APR 2014)

H.24. BUSINESS CLASS TRAVEL

H.25. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

H.26. CONTRACTOR’S USE OF PROJECT VEHICLES AND LIABILITY INSURANCE

REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES

H.27. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

H.28. NONDISCRIMINATION (JUNE 2012)

H.29. PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OR ADVOCACY OF THE LEGALIZATION

OR PRACTICE OF PROSTITUTION

OR SEX TRAFFICKING (ACQUISITION) (JUNE 2005)

H.30. COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION

REAUTHORIZATION ACT

H.31. SPECIAL CONDITIONS

H.32. LOGISTIC SUPPORT

H.33. ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS SYSTEM

H.34. USAID IMPLEMENTING PARTNER NOTICES (IPN) PORTAL FOR ACQUISITION

(JUL 2014)

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1. NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

AIDAR CLAUSES (48 CFR CHAPTER7)

I.2. 52.203-7 ANTI-KICKBACK PROCEDURES (MAY 2014)

I.3. 52.203-13 CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (APR

2010)

I.4. 52.209-9 UPDATES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION REGARDING

RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JUL 2013)

I.5. 52.215-23 LIMITATIONS ON PASS-THROUGH CHARGES (OCT 2009)

I.6. 52.217-2 CANCELLATION UNDER MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS (OCT 1997)

I.7. 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999)

I.8. 52.232-40 PROVIDING ACCELARATED PAYMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS -

SUBCONTRACTORS (DEC 2013)

I.9. 52.243-7 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES (APR 1984)

I.10. 52.247-67 SUBMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS FOR AUDIT (FEB

2006)

I.11. 752.219-70 USAID MENTOR- PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM (JUL 2007)

PART III LIST OF REFERENCES

SECTION J - LIST OF REFERENCES

PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS

K.1. NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE

K.2. 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (MAY 2014)

K.3. 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JUL 2013) 82

K.4. 52.219-22 SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS (OCT 1999)

K.5. INSURANCE ‐ IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY

K.6. AGREEMENT ON, OR EXCEPTIONS TO, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

K.7. 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION

(MAY 2012)

K.8. 52.230-7 PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE – COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CHANGES

(APR 2005)

K.9. FAR 52.209-XX REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATION REGARDING A

DELINQUENT TAX LIABILITY OR A FELONY CRIMINAL CONVICTION

(Deviation OAA-DEV-14-02c) (AUG 2014)

K.10. SIGNATURE

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. (FEB 1998)………...90

L.2 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT. (APR 1984)……………………………………………………………..90

L.3 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST. (SEP 2006) …………………………………………………………...90

L.4 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS……………………………………………………………91

L.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL……………………93

L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL…………………………….98

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE BRANDING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND

THE MARKING PLAN…………………………………………………………… 103

L.8 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS HORTATORY LANGUAGE FOR ACQUISITION

SOLICITATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 103

L.9 RESERVED……………………………………… 105

SECTION M - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA………………………………

M.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA……………………………………………………………………… 106

M.2 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION………………………………………………………………….. 107

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this five year contract is to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms as described in detail in Section C.1, Statement of Work.

B.2. CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Cost plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) /Level of Effort type contract. For the consideration set forth in the contract, the Contractor shall provide all reports, deliverables or outputs as described in Section F.4 and comply with all contract requirements.

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

(a) The estimated cost for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fixed fee, if any, is $TBD. The fixed fee, if any, is $TBD. The estimated cost plus fixed fee, if any, is $TBD.

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

B.4. BUDGET

The following budget table captures the final negotiated cost elements for the performance of the work required hereunder.

ITEM Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

DIRECT COSTS

INDIRECT

COST

GRANTS UNDER

CONTRACTS

TOTAL

FIXED FEE

TOTAL

COST PLUS

FIXED FEE

B.5. INDIRECT COSTS

Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases for the prime contractor and its major subcontractors (“major subcontractors” are those subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% or more of the technical effort):

Prime:

Description

TBD

Rate

TBD

Base 1/

Type 1/

Period 1/

TBD TBD 2/ 2/ 2/

1/ Base of Application:

TBD Type of Rate: TBD Period: TBD

2/ Base of Application:

Major Subcontractor(s):

Description

TBD

Rate

TBD

Base 1/

Type 1/

Period 1/

TBD TBD 2/ 2/ 2/

1/ Base of Application:

2/ Base of Application:

The Contractor is allowed to recover applicable indirect costs (i.e., overhead, G&A, etc.) on other direct costs (ODCs), if it is part of the Contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31, and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). Indirect costs shall not be allowed for organizations that do not have a NICRA. All costs for organizations without a NICRA shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.

B.6. CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS

Reimbursement for allowable indirect costs shall be at final negotiated rates but not in excess of the following ceiling rates:

Contractor Overhead

Rate % Overhead Ceiling Rate%

G&A Rate %

G&A Ceiling Rate %

PRIME

MAJOR

SUBCONTRACTOR(S)

NOTE 1: Insert additional indirect rates as needed for all primes and major subcontractors in the above table.

NOTE 2: If the Contractor does not have a NICRA, all costs must be budgeted and billed as direct costs, and this clause is not applicable.

(1) The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount should the final indirect cost rates exceed the negotiated ceiling rates. If the final indirect cost rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates.

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

B.7. COST REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable shall be limited to reasonable, allocable and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, FAR 52.216-8, Fixed Fee, if applicable, and AIDAR 752.7003, Documentation for Payment.

B.8. PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

Pursuant to FAR 16.306 (d), payment of fixed fee shall be based on completion of the deliverables described in Section F, subject to inspection and acceptance by USAID as specified in section E, of the same and otherwise in compliance with the terms of the contract. Upon acceptance by USAID and receipt of approval from the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall submit an invoice for the amount of the fee associated with the deliverable.

Pursuant to FAR 52.216-8, Fixed Fee, after payment of 85 percent of the fixed fee, further payment of the fee will be withheld until a reserve is set aside not to exceed 15% of the total fixed fee or $100,000.00, whichever is less.

The Contractor shall propose a fee distribution schedule for review and approval by USAID.

B.9. MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

This contract is subject to the requirements of FAR 17.106.

Cancellation Dates: Cancellation Ceiling:

Contract Year 2: TBD, 2016 TBD Contract Year 3: TBD, 2017 TBD

Contract Year 4: TBD, 2018 TBD Contract Year 5: TBD, 2019 TBD

Cancellation Ceiling:

This is a CPFF Level of Effort type contract where the contractor is authorized to be reimbursed for all costs which are allowable in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Costs and Payment”. Therefore, the contractor will not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the contract should the contract be cancelled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2.

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI)

C.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI), hereafter referred to as “the program”, is to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. It contributes to the overall goal of USAID/Liberia’s civil society and media interventions, which is to increase the influence of citizens and media in the governance of public goods and services, and to Development Objective 1 in USAID/Liberia’s CDCS: more effective, accountable, and inclusive governance.

USAID/Liberia intends to award a contract in support of the following objectives:

• Increased horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues;

• Increased organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue-based reforms;

• On-going capacity development services available on local market; and

• Learning and methodologies shared and applied by other development actors.

C.2 BACKGROUND

Since the end of the Liberian civil war in 2003, there is increasing space for the engagement of citizens, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), and the media in public policy and service delivery, but effective accountability mechanisms lag behind. Currently, governance is based on the consensus of elite groups, leaving little room for broad-based civic input. Across all sectors, laws and regulations are increasingly well-developed and in compliance with regional and international standards but they are poorly implemented and enforced. There are low opinions of government transparency, accountability, and responsiveness and a sense that civil and political rights have not led to greater realization of core economic and social rights. Citizens lack widespread access to information and communication and thus do not have the means to understand and monitor their government and ensure that their interests are reflected in the public agenda.

CSOs and the media have made efforts to mobilize and inform citizens but both sectors face significant constraints. Liberian CSOs share a set of common organizational and governance problems and have limited technical expertise, factors which combine to compromise their effectiveness. Most have limited constituencies and are overly reliant on activity-specific funding from donors. There are limited linkages between the few national organizations engaged in high level influencing and those groups representing or comprised of local interest groups. Liberian CSOs have been reluctant to work with other types of organizational forms such as organized labor and informal trade associations, professional associations, faith communities, public interest and service delivery Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and community-based groups. The media sector is faced with restrictions on press freedom, market failures, a lack of professional standards, weak media interest groups, and limited public access to media and information more generally.

CSOs have a series of common organizational challenges linked to internal governance, accountability to their constituencies, programmatic depth, strategic thinking and planning, monitoring and evaluation, fundraising, and financial management. The predominant approach taken by public interest CSOs is a watchdog role that is reactive and tracks and reports on what public officials and government institutions do. Over-reliance on this approach minimizes opportunities for CSOs to act as a resource, build relationships with public officials and develop their own public policy solutions. Informed influence in reform processes is not merely a function of technical skill. Weak constituency representation and governance structures undermine the ‘political legitimacy’ of CSOs in the eyes of state actors, often justifiably so. Membership organizations are not necessarily more democratic; membership mobilization can be very weak, and leadership hierarchical and not subject to renewal.

Capacity development support is mostly provided by International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs) and consultants, with inconsistent quality. Similar to other post-conflict environments, the predominance of international implementers has contributed to the weak local market for capacity development service providers by displacing local providers and, to some extent, precluding the development of local expertise. The few local providers that do exist are not well adapted to the sector. USAID’s current Civil Society and Media Leadership (CSML) activity has focused on strengthening six larger CSOs to provide capacity development services, including mentoring.

Reliance on funding from donors or INGOs forces Liberian CSOs to compete amongst themselves and hamstrings them politically by tying them to funders’ agendas. Donor financing, largely channeled through international intermediaries, has tended to be project and activity specific, seldom more than 12 months in duration, and core funding is extremely rare. This approach to funding limits their opportunity to develop long-term strategies, broader funding bases, attract and retain human resources, and address issues of sustainability. Diversified funding bases are needed to ensure greater self-direction, but many CSOs will continue to rely on external sources, as is the case globally. There are a wide range of less formalized CSOs and CBOs that rely on volunteers and membership dues. Approximately 85 percent of CSOs surveyed in a recent national mapping exercise do not receive external sponsorship of any kind.

Within this formidable cluster of inhibiting factors, there are also important opportunities.

Enabling elements include increasing experience and skill in working in coalitions to mobilize constituencies and influence state action, high level GOL commitment to key international good governance frameworks, and a gradual opening up of the policy process itself. There are several examples of successful engagement in which the GOL relied on the expertise of CSOs for service delivery and policy formulation. Media attention has proven particularly influential in galvanizing attention, changing the terms of the debate, and eliciting a response from state actors.

There are limited linkages between the few national organizations engaged in high-level influencing and those that represent or are comprised of local interest groups. The main national public interest CSOs are concentrated in Monrovia, reflecting higher levels of education and economic activity. They have yet to become a major political force with mobilized constituencies.

Within the formalized NGO community, networks and coalitions have grown but have encountered the following challenges: bureaucratization and over-extension; inactive memberships; tension over profile and control of resources; the secretariat becoming an independent force that is seen competitively by membership; and the lack of inclusiveness of other organizational types.

In some sectors and issue areas, the government regards civil society as a constructive partner with whom useful synergies have been forged. In others, low levels of trust and a lack of enduring relationships between public officials and civil society further hamper attempts at collaboration.

The executive and legislative branches do provide some information about their work but are not perceived by CSOs to be genuinely interested in seeking civil society consultation and dialogue.

Ministries and legislators in turn criticize CSOs for their limited engagement, lack of professionalism, and limited subject matter expertise.

Assessments of political space at local levels stress the lack of citizen engagement in decision making processes and the absence of space to assert rights to influence and resources. This is due to the elite nature of decision making and its concentration in the capital. Even at the national level, there are few formal entry points for citizens and civil society organizations (CSOs) to have an impact due to a lack of resources and inadequate information about, and limited access to, legislative and political processes. Civil society groups also lack the capacity to take basic political information, analyze it and repackage it in a way that the public can understand. As a result, space is haphazard and unpredictable, rendering citizen and CSO engagement a challenge. One such example is the budget process. Although budget transparency is incrementally improving, information is not presented in a way that is easy for non-experts to understand and there are limited opportunities to use this data in the budget decision making processes.

Inequalities are prevalent across multiple dimensions including class; urban/rural locations, region, age; and ethnic identity. Lack of and unequal access is particularly prevalent in terms of employment; basic services; informal and formal systems of judicial redress; political power and processes; and land and natural resources. In Liberia’s highly centralized governance system, people are left with little opportunity and access to influence decision making. The origins of the Liberian conflict were rooted in the marginalization and/or exclusion over many years of a large part of the Liberian population from political power and the economic wealth flowing from the country’s substantial natural resources. Elites and power dynamics rather than policies or formal laws and regulations continue to shape the realities of the enabling environment. This is facilitated by structural weakness and the unequal distribution of power and resources in both informal and formal policy making processes, and public administration. Nepotism and corruption are key sources of resentment, and many people do not trust local and national government, or the political system, to respond to citizens’ needs.

There are major gender disparities in key social, economic and political indicators at every level in Liberia. Constraining forces for legislative action and policy implementation include multiple legal systems (customary and statutory), regional and religious differences, and a limited ability to claim rights. In practice, there is often neither a remit in accountability institutions to answer to women or to a gender equality constituency, nor do normative standards of accountability consider gender inequalities to be intolerable or to require official remedy. On the other hand, there have been some successes and there is a shared agenda that change is required. There is greater public awareness and support for gender equality and greater sophistication in women’s mobilization and representation. That said, gender hierarchies are deeply embedded, meaning that the capability and willingness to act needs to be interrogated, not assumed, and adequately supported.

Gender also cross cuts other social cleavages, and interacts with broader dynamics related to political and social exclusion. ‘Youth’ in Liberia is often used as a socio-economic classification, rather than simply a demographic category. It is used to describe people who are excluded from access to political, economic or societal power. Tension between youth and elders was heightened prior to the war, but became even more visible and important during the conflict. Liberian youth face high unemployment, low education and skill levels, and are often not allowed to participate in decision-making processes which are dominated by older men. Many young people view local systems of land tenure and marriage payments as instruments of exploitation by the elite and/or chiefs. In response to this continued gerontocratic dominance, youth draw on organizational forms and a local human rights discourse to create spaces for negotiation. These openings hold potential for long-term rearrangements of societal relations. Younger people are also a majority – an estimated 60 to 70 percent of Liberia’s population is under 35. Demographics and its associated social hierarchies are a key dynamic of change.

Underlying the five-year LAVI program is an understanding that strengthening accountability between citizens and government involves a complex set of inter-linkages between actors in which mutual trust is key to facilitating shared expectations and collective action. It is not merely a matter of citizens and media holding public representatives to account. A strategy which relies solely on individual groups, with the main function of the donor being to support their organizational capacity development, is likely to have only marginal impacts. While individual and organizational capacity is indeed a constraint to resolving the deep-seated nature of Liberia’s governance challenges, it is not always the most critical one. Rather, to achieve change in the political economy, broad-based coalitions of agents that cut across civil society, media, the private sector and government must jointly aim to leverage change around the rules and norms that sustain the key constraints. Bottom-up pressure from citizens and the media can be an important factor in improving state performance but experience shows that attention must also be paid to top-down pressures or ‘working with the grain’.

Critical to the process is the development of a robust understanding of specific ‘issue networks’ to frame who the critical actors are, and whose voice is excluded. This will have implications for which organizations are supported, and what types of relationships would be most beneficial to networks around a given issue. Interventions need to be based on an understanding of why people – on both the ‘citizen demand’ and ‘responsive state’ sides – would choose to pay attention to an particular issue, take action, and persist when setbacks happen, and a more granular view of who would act beyond the typical classification of ‘citizens’ or ‘authorities’. A central element is the establishment of feedback loops in a structured manner; and the establishment or nurturing of existing incentives and external relationships that can foster a culture of iteration and learning.

C.2.1 USAID Support for Civil Society in Liberia and Alignment with US Government

Strategies

While there are a plethora of actors that provide support to civil society organizations, USAID has historically been the most significant donor in this sector. The Civil Society and Media Leadership (CSML) (2010-2015) Program in Liberia provide resources to local civil society organizations and independent media to engage the population in inclusive, peaceful and sustainable development.

CSML is improving the skills, performance and perceptions of Liberian civil society organizations (CSOs) through training, mentoring, and small grant projects. Simultaneously, the project is working with the Liberian media industry to build capacity and professionalize both individual journalists and media outlets.

Civil society and citizen engagement is multi-sectoral. As such, LAVI may be linked to and complement the following ongoing and planned programs.

Liberia Media Development (2015-2020) will increase citizen access to independent and reliable information by strengthening media houses, increasing the plurality of voices represented in Liberian media, supporting the professionalism of Liberian media, improving the enabling environment for media, and improving the GOL’s capacity to respond to freedom of information requests.

The Land Governance Project (2015-2020) will help to ensure the technical soundness of policies, laws, and regulations on land rights and administration; support the GOL in overcoming institutional and capacity barriers in the land sector; and assist in piloting the implementation of key components of the anticipated Land Rights Law.

Peoples, Rules, Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (2012-2017) introduces, operationalizes, and refines appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development.

Government and Economic Management Support (2011-2016) builds human and institutional capacity in Liberia’s public sector, with a focus on public financial management, public procurement, asset management, and human resources.

Education, Access, Quality and Governance Project (2015-2020) will focus on increasing access to schooling, improving the quality of education, and capacity-building for improved sector governance.

The Integrated Health Project (2014-2019) will provide top-down support to the GOL in system strengthening to carry out effective health system decentralization, with complementary bottom-up support for community health and social service delivery and local management of health and social services.

LAVI is closely aligned with the 2013 USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance. The Strategy prioritizes the following outcomes: greater citizen participation, inclusion, and more accountable institutions and leaders. It also emphasizes the need for USAID to deliberately undertake initiatives to ensure equity of opportunity and access to public goods and services for all citizens, especially vulnerable populations and minority groups. It identifies support to CSOs and independent media as central channels for citizen voice and the generation of external demand for government accountability. The integration of DRG issues into other technical sectors is one of four objectives, grounded in emerging evidence which demonstrates their linkages with socio-economic outcomes. By using an issues-based approach to address accountability and transparency, this program will be cross-cutting in nature, working across sectors to affect institutional change and promote the effectiveness of citizens’ voices.

LAVI is also grounded in USAID’s Local Systems Framework through its approach to building sustainable systems as a whole by focusing on the actors, their interrelationships, and the incentives that guide them. The program places particular emphasis on four of the principles outlined in the Framework: embedding flexibility, embracing facilitation, strengthening accountability, and monitoring and evaluating for sustainability. While individual organizations will continue to receive support, the design emphasizes strengthening the capacities that groups need to engage productively with other actors who can contribute to improved outcomes.

LAVI is also informed by Liberian and international experience in donor-supported transparency and accountability initiatives. For example:

• Increasing external demand (‘voice’) is not inherently linked to a response from government;

• Spreading resources too thinly increases the risk of creating a scattered portfolio of small CSO and media activities that are difficult to scale up or link together in a strategic way;

• Investments in facilitation and incentives to bring different actors together to resolve problems are critical to achieving results;

• Invest in building the local capacity development market so that interventions support the capacity development ‘system’ overall, and not simply individual organizations or staff members;

• Donor involvement can be particularly valuable in supporting the ecosystem through which local capacity development can be reinforced;

• State-civil society relationships vary by sector and issue; and

• Significant change requires sustained support over longer periods of time.

C.3 SERVICES AND TASKS REQUIRED

The underlying purpose is to develop a portfolio of initiatives with the potential for cumulative impact, clustered around issues which have the greatest potential for change, and which are responsive to locally-defined priorities. The approach responds to the need to build critical mass around areas of shared concern, and is predicated on the assumption that change is most likely to occur when stakeholders work together across sectors and interest groups toward shared outcomes, particularly when issue-based relationships and alliances form from across these groups of actors.

C.3.1 CORE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND TASKS

The primary objectives of this contract are to:

• Increase horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues

• Increase organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue-based reforms

• Promote the development of on-going capacity development services on the local market

• Ensure that learning and methodologies are shared and applied by other development actors

Results shall be achieved through a combination of contractor facilitation, technical assistance, thematic and core grant funding, and support to the establishment of a local capacity development service provider market.

C.3.2 DETAILED WORK REQUIREMENTS

Objective 1: Strengthen horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues

LAVI shall support the work of CSOs operating around four or five sector-specific issue areas.

These thematic funding windows will bring together actors across sectors and interest groups to address specific issues where there is political interest and a strong potential for making tangible improvements in the daily lives of citizens. The contractor will propose and implement a method for defining and selecting priority themes, to be agreed with USAID and the Advisory Council (see Section C.3.4). While most final determinations on priority themes will be made after award, natural resource management and concessions will be one of thematic funding windows. Other possibilities include, but are not limited to, water utility reform and service delivery, reform of marketplace management, police accountability, and teacher absenteeism. USAID anticipates that at least two of the themes will be fully designed, with grant processes initiated for at least one theme, by the end of Year 1.

The contractor shall facilitate processes that bring actors together, by providing spaces for engagement, grants, information and organizational development and technical support. An understanding of power dynamics and prevailing incentives and interests is a pre-condition to identifying which approaches will influence the behaviors of different actors, and therefore how improved transparency and accountability will occur. The contractor shall place emphasis on supporting partners to use a political economy informed analysis to guide decisions on focal areas, and to tailor interventions and advocacy approaches to suit the circumstances. This will also help frame who the critical actors are, whose voice is excluded, which organizations will be supported, and geographical implementation areas.

Typically, significant change requires sustained action over time so it is anticipated that a relatively limited number of themes will be targeted during the life of the activity. Selection criteria for the themes will be finalized after contract award, but indicative criteria are their potential to:

a) Work ‘with the grain’, or on issues and reforms that already have some traction;

b) Address core social equity concerns;

c) Make tangible improvements for citizens;

d) Develop linkages between different types of development actors; and

e) Strengthen citizen-state accountability relationships.

LAVI emphasizes the promotion of joint action by a range of organizations on a limited number of focused issues. An important measure of success is whether the activity can strengthen linkages between and beyond civil society groups. Linkages may be formal or informal, and can be understood in two dimensions:

a) Vertical linkages – linkages between communities and organizations working at the grassroots, and those that are able to influence the actions of local or national leaders and decision-makers within or outside of the government.

b) Horizontal linkages – organizations and individuals working effectively together, either in formal networks or informal coalitions, at various levels –from the grassroots to the national level.

The approach recognizes that institutional change is driven not just by the activities of government offices, but that it also occurs in response to broader interests in society. Seeking out ways to connect increased voice with the relevant actors in government institutions and strengthening mechanisms that function to bring the state and citizen together are central to this approach. The contractor’s role will be to facilitate the creation of political space for Liberians to debate and decide their own solutions to context-specific questions related to governance and political representation, with an emphasis on identifying the spaces where change is already happening and nurturing those processes. Members of the partnership will lead on the issue and processes, while the contractor will provide supportive guidance from behind. The contractor’s facilitation of networks and partnerships should be appropriate to the problems identified and the theory of change, and should not necessarily seek to create formal or permanent relationships. An important focus across LAVI will be on building the capacity of CSOs to work more effectively with media, to include new media. This work will complement the more intensive media development activity which will be awarded separately and will need to be closely coordinated to avoid duplication and build synergies.

The contractor shall hold an annual review to assess progress and make adjustments, as necessary.

USAID, with the input of the Advisory Council, may elect to open up the same theme for additional proposals on a periodic basis, or it may elect to open new thematic windows.

Illustrative interventions may include:

• Confirm selection criteria for thematic funding windows and conduct an initial assessment of potential issues

• Select themes for the grant fund and commission scoping exercises and consultations to ensure that there is a full understanding of the political economy surrounding each theme

• Draft relevant manuals and procedures for grant funds

• Issue Expression of Interest for each theme and encourage and assist non-traditional actors to apply

• Provide technical assistance to applicants during the proposal development process to promote formulation of common (or complementary) goals, objectives and tactics within partnerships

• Issue grants to partners under each thematic funding window

• Conduct periodic reviews of grants to assess performance and make adjustments, as necessary

Expected Program Results under Objective 1:

• Critical mass of actors achieved to stimulate collective action on identified themes

• Networks established or nurtured among a variety of actors to support thematic window design, monitoring and implementation

• Tangible outcomes within specific reform areas

Objective 2: Increase organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue-based reforms

The contractor shall build on the experience of existing programs in Liberia and will use varying delivery approaches targeted to the different needs, organizational development paths and types of CSOs. These approaches could include direct coaching and mentoring, communities of practice and peer-to-peer learning, information brokering, and more conventional training opportunities, where appropriate. The contractor shall apply a capability model which allows for a common framework of analysis around ‘domains’ of capacity but allows organizations to define individual objectives relative to their size, status, degree of maturity and the environment in which they work.

The contractor shall assist each partner to develop and implement a capacity development plan appropriate to its organizational needs, recognizing that not all groups will need to become more formalized in order to meet their objectives.

As appropriate, the activity will introduce partners to new innovations in technology and communication, such as SMS systems designed to collect and disseminate data, or Global Positioning System (GPS) photo technology for documenting failures in basic services. The Contractor should be familiar with the newly developed principles set forth for ICT for Development, and activities that adhere to these principles (http://ict4dprinciples.org/). Resource mobilization and management will also be a likely focus area. The contractor will play a connector role using its knowledge of partners and joining them with relevant funders.

Local partners identified under Objective 1 will be eligible to receive organizational capacity http://ict4dprinciples.org/ development grants support, as appropriate to their needs and interests, and with a focus on supporting their capacity to achieve agreed results. Use of outcome mapping or similar methodology will assist in defining these priorities. In consultation with USAID, the contractor may also provide organizational core funding grants to three to five organizations to strengthen their ability to generate and influence alternative ideas and analysis over the longer term, or to strengthen its capacity development services. While these organizations may also receive funding under Objective 1, it is not an eligibility requirement for core funding support. The approach is to fund a proportion of an organization’s strategic plan or operational plan – rather than to develop a particular project and fully fund that ring-fenced piece of work. Core funding seeks to help organizations become more successful in what they are seeking to do by giving them a degree of financial space to grow, develop, and demonstrate results.

Illustrative interventions may include:

• Conduct or update participatory organizational capacity assessments

• Work with grantees to develop customized organizational development plans outlining necessary training and technical assistance

• Deliver specialized technical assistance, training, mentoring and coaching not available locally

• Provide on-going technical assistance for network strengthening and coalition building during the implementation phase

• Facilitate other forms of assistance to include communities of practice, peer-to-peer learning, information brokering, study trips, and twinning

• Assist civil society organisations/group to promote/use simple, innovative technology-based tools which can enhance public engagement, monitoring and reporting on service delivery issues

• Seek to match organizations with appropriate donors

• Select partners and manage three to five core funding grants over the life of the activity

Expected Program Results under Objective 2:

• Each partner develops and implements a capacity development plan

• Organizational core funding grants provided to three to five mature organizations to strengthen their ability to generate and influence alternative ideas and analysis over the longer term

Objective 3: Promote the development of on-going capacity development services on the local market

Adopting a brokering role, the contractor shall seek to catalyze systematic change in the way that services are provided through: a) supporting local partner efforts to define their own needs; and b) enabling partners to negotiate services directly with a range of regional and local providers to include CSOs based in-country, firms, and individual consultants. The aim will be to connect local demand for capacity development services as much as possible with local and regional suppliers.

Financial resources to access capacity development services may be provided as part of the grants.

Participating organizations may also use non-USAID resources to access capacity development providers. The final design of the service provider pool will be contingent on the results of the market diagnostic and consultations with stakeholders. The approach will seek to address one of the major challenges to capacity development in Liberia - the lack of a sustainable network of relationships that are independent of donor support and direction.

The aim is to provide local organizations greater control over their own organizational development while helping to foster a market that links those needing capacity development services with those capable of delivering them. Regional service providers may also be included given the relatively small size of the Liberian market.

To mitigate risk and ensure that services and expertise are available as the capacity development service provider pool is developed and strengthened, the contractor shall directly engage international experts and organizations to fill gaps, provide services that are not currently available, and assist with building the capacity of local service providers in specific areas. These areas might include outcome mapping and other methodologies suited to advocacy and influencing interventions, resource mobilization and change management, alternative and new media, and monitoring and evaluation.

Illustrative interventions may include:

• Conduct market diagnostic to assess demand for and supply of capacity development services

• Establish eligibility criteria for local and regional service providers to be included in the pool

• Design systems to facilitate direct access of grantees to service providers

• Provide technical assistance to capacity development service providers based on identified gaps

• Coordinate with other USAID implementing partners, donors, and international NGOs to facilitate buy-in and support for local capacity development market

Expected Program Results under Objective 3:

• Connect local demand for capacity development services as much as possible with local and regional suppliers

• Catalyze systematic change in the way that services are provided through: a) supporting local partner efforts to define their own needs; and b) enabling partners to negotiate services directly with a range of regional and local providers

Objective 4: Ensure that learning and methodologies are shared and applied by other development actors

The contractor shall support partners to develop and test robust and realistic theories of change, and create forums for information sharing, learning from best practices, developing politically informed strategies for effective advocacy, and pro-actively reaching out to government and legislative actors through issue-based events. The contractor shall synthesize lessons and good practice to provide an overall picture on how change in accountability and greater responsiveness in specific issue areas can be achieved in the Liberian context.

The contractor must work closely with the USAID Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and USAID Liberia’s Collaborating Learning Adapting (CLA) Advisor, particularly in broadcasting lessons learned to a wider audience within Liberia, including local CSOs not directly involved in the project, international NGOs, and donors. The underlying purpose of this objective is:

• To provide a platform for dialogue among partners to develop a common stance, and among partners and entities targeted for change objectives on contentious issues related to identified reform initiatives;

• To enable partners to learn and share with other…