RFI_-_FAQR_III_-_26_June_2015.pdf

THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.

WASHINGTON, DC 20523

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

AND

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE

Response Due:

Friday, July 10, 2015 @ 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time Zone)

ATTENTION: Rachel Baltes, Contract Specialist http://www.usaid.gov/

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) and Sources Sought Notice – USAID/DCHA/FFP

Solicitation Number: SOL-OAA-15-000124 Notice Type: Special Notice - Sources Sought Subject: DCHA/ Food Aid Quality Review (FAQR) Phase III Issuance Date: June 26, 2015 Closing Date: July 10, 2015 Closing Time: 4:00 PM EST

This is a Request for Information and Sources Sought Notice. This is not a Request for Proposals (RFP) and is not to be construed as a commitment by the U.S. Government to issue any solicitation or ultimately award a contract on the basis of this RFI, or to pay for any information submitted as a result of this request. If a solicitation is released it will be synopsized in FedBizOpps. It is the potential offeror's responsibility to monitor the site for the release of any solicitation or synopsis. It should be noted that responding to this RFI will not give any advantage to any firm or organization in the subsequent procurement. Responses will be held confidential. Proprietary information should not be sent.

Background For almost fifty years, USAID has provided micronutrient enriched or fortified, processed foods and basic commodities to vulnerable, food-insecure populations. These commodities assist food insecure populations by providing for their nutritional needs. Many of these commodities are enriched or fortified. Over the course of these years, the demographics and health status of these beneficiary populations have changed. In the light of these changes and of the recommendations proposed during previous review, USAID took the initiative to implement the recommendations in the latest report, issued in 20111,2. A number of the recommendations have been carried out, but there are still important recommendations on products, programming and processes that must be completed.

Objectives The principal objectives of this contract is to conclude the implementation of the Food Aid Quality Review (FAQR) recommendations for changes in products, programming, and processes in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of food aid. This work assumes a variety of forms, including, but not limited to the following:

1. Research into the cost effectiveness of new food products and completing ongoing research on these new food products

1 Delivering Improved Nutrition, Recommendations for Changes to U.S. Food Aid Products and Programs, April 2011, which is intended to serve as a synthesis and summary of the final report and (2) the full detailed report: Improving the Nutritional Quality of U.S. Food Aid:

Recommendations for Changes to U.S. Food Aid Products and Programs (June 2011.

2 2 GAO. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE Better Nutrition and Quality Control Can Further Improve U.S. Food Aid. May, 2011. http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318210.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADZ842.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADZ841.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADZ841.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318210.pdf

2. Testing for acceptability and efficacy of new food products and new formulations of existing products and new technologies for producing improved products

3. Undertaking comparative studies on packaging and delivery (both logistical and nutritional) methodologies and technologies

4. Planning and holding consultative and expert meetings

5. Undertaking literature and research reviews related to food-based delivery of micronutrients in the environments where food aid is required

6. Assessing implementation mechanisms and the cost/benefit analysis of field tools for monitoring and evaluation so that partners can have improved tools for calculating the cost effectiveness of food and food interventions, including specialized foods

In particular, this final phase of the FAQR will use a participatory approach through consultative processes to solicit input from stakeholders early on as the SOW is rolled out.

RFI Responses

USAID has released the following draft Statement of Work (SOW) to provide the public with a more detailed description of USAID’s Food Aid Quality Review Phase III Program. Potential offerors are invited to examine the SOW and submit, comments, and/or suggestions to the e-mail address designated in this notice.

In addition, USAID seeks company capability statements from interested vendors to determine if sources are capable of filling the Government’s potential requirement. Companies having the skills and capabilities necessary to perform this work should submit a response of no more than three (3) pages in length, single spaced, 12 point font minimum. The Government will not review any information, including attachments, in excess of the three pages. Companies should provide clear and unambiguous evidence to substantiate their capability to fulfill the requirements outlined in the DRAFT SOW. Companies are encouraged to highlight existing or potential partnerships with leading academics and researchers.

Submittal Information

Comments and /or suggestions regarding this announcement must be submitted in writing by e-mail to Rachel Baltes, Contract Specialist, at RBaltes@usaid.gov.

This statement of capabilities must include:

• Company name and address.

• Company point of contact name, telephone number, and email address.

• Company business size and status (e.g., small business, 8(a), HUBZone, Veteran, Service

Disabled Veteran, and/or Women Owned; etc.), the number of years in business, and affiliate information.

• North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code

• The company’s GSA Schedule contract number, if applicable.

• List of customers and contracts covering the past three years for work considered relevant to the description of need.

• Capabilities/Qualifications: A written response providing clear and unambiguous evidence to substantiate the capacity to fulfill this requirement. The firm must provide the following information:

1. A cursory plan on how they would carry out Objectives One (1) through Six (6);

2. A brief description of their technical capacity to carry out Objectives One (1) through

Five (6)

3. A brief description of the processes they would use to achieve the objectives and how they would socialize and institutionalize the results of the research, reviews and consultations;

4. An estimate of the amount of time needed to carry out these activities.

All submitted documentation become Government property and will not be returned. Please do not submit proposals or resumes as they will be discarded. Submissions will not be acknowledged. USAID may use any information provided without incurring any obligation. No phone calls or hand carries will be accepted.

It is requested that response to this RFI including the above information be submitted no later than Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:00PM EST to Rachel Baltes, Contract Specialist at RBaltes@usaid.gov

Note: Comments may be sent to USAID with or without company capability statements.

Thank you for your assistance and interest in USAID DCHA/FFP program.

DRAFT STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION C: STATEMENT OF WORK: CONCLUSION OF THE FOOD

AID QUALITY REVIEW (FAQR): FINAL PHASE OF

IMPLEMENTATION

C.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this award is to provide services that will assist USAID in concluding the implementation of the FAQR recommendations for changes in products, programming, and processes in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of food aid. This work assumes a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, research into the acceptability and cost effectiveness of new food products, testing of food products, packaging and delivery (both logistical and nutritional) methodologies, comparative studies, consultative and expert meetings, literature and research reviews related to food delivery of micronutrients in the environments where food aid is required, assessment of implementation mechanisms and costing tools so that partners can have a better tool for calculating the cost effectiveness of a food, especially a specialized food. In particular, this concluding phase of the FAQR will continue its participatory approach through its consultative processes to solicit input from stakeholders as it is deployed.

C.2 BACKGROUND

The overarching goal of the USAID food aid program described in the Food for Peace (FFP) Act, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, is to reduce food insecurity of vulnerable populations around the world. An important part of the program and effort focuses on malnutrition and its negative impact on health, learning, and productivity. The FFP program seeks to combat the root causes of food insecurity, to improve nutrition and the quality of food aid and assistance, and, through the direct distribution of food aid commodities, to provide for the immediate dietary needs of needy and vulnerable people.

Improving the nutritional quality of U.S. food aid has been a FFP priority since the Food Aid Quality Review (FAQR) process planning began in 2007 and continues to the present day. In 2011, the USAID Administrator launched the recommendations of the FAQR. During the FAQR implementation phase, which began in FY2012 (FAQR II), FFP leaders set introductions of new foods, along with improvements in food aid programming and processes as a FFP priority. Under this priority, both FFP’s Program Operations Division (POD) and the Policy and Technical Division (PTD) nutrition team introduced a significant number of new food products with support from the FAQR contractor. In addition POD and the nutrition team followed-up on related quality assurance concerns as well as started the process of assessing the cost-effectiveness of some of these products in the field for the treatment and prevention of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) (Some of the reformulation recommendations in the FAQR reports have not yet been introduced). The food products that were rolled out include Ready to Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF), Ready to Use Supplementary Foods (RUSF), Emergency Food Products (EFP), Supercereal Plus (SC+), and High Energy Biscuits (HEB).

Simply stated, the basis of this Statement of Work (SOW) is to finalize the implementation of the recommendations and sub-recommendations that were not completed during FAQR II.

Food Aid Quality Review FFP Priority Objective #6 2014 – Progress Summary

As per the 2015 Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Bureau priorities, FFP must work on the following as part of DCHA Objective 3 which is to achieve timely, effective and life-saving humanitarian response:

Under Objective 3, new priorities include:

10) Develop a new strategy for pre-positioned food stocks

11) Refine production schedule and programming for RUTF; RUSF; SC+; EFP; HEB. Set targets for production and develop programming strategy.

12 ) Modernize US in-kind food: review calls forward, shipping, packaging, fumigation alternatives; review of Internal Transport, Storage and Handling (ITSH) & inland rates

As part of the ongoing efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of U.S. food aid operations, the USAID Office of Food for Peace reviewed (through a contractor) the state of science as it relates to the nutrition-related needs of traditionally vulnerable groups, including vitamin and mineral enrichment and technologies of fortification of food aid commodities and methods for the delivery of micronutrients in the form of supplements or powders. This critical review resulted in two reports that provided clear direction for achieving improved nutritional quality of products targeted to vulnerable populations. The review was carried out in a consultative fashion that has set up a model for enhanced communication and information flow with FFP stakeholders including consultations with manufacturers and awardees. It also resulted in the development of a model for periodic review of issues related to products and processes with FFP's principal procurement partner, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and enhanced USDA’s buy-in of the recommendation as well as improved coordination and communication with FFP emergency partners, especially the World Food Program (WFP) and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).

6) Advance new food products, production and programming:

1) RUTF - 4,800 metric tons (MT) production and program goal (compared with 3,200 MT in fiscal year 2013 and 990 MT in fiscal year 2012 –2014) - 2014 goal was originally 4,120 MT

2) RUSF- 4,400 MT production and program goal (compared with 200 MT in fiscal year 2013) - 2014goal was originally 3,700 MT

3) EFPs - 400 MT program goal (compared with no tons in fiscal year 2013 and 300 MT in fiscal year 2012)- 4) SC+ - 2,500 MT production and program goal, 2014 goal was not met; however, progress made despite shortfall of 800 MT.

All of the process was both summarized and detailed in two reports stemming from the FAQR for FFP and its stakeholders. The reports are: (1) Delivering Improved Nutrition, Recommendations for Changes to U.S. Food Aid Products and Programs, April 2011, which is intended to serve as a synthesis and summary of the final report and (2) the full detailed report:

Improving the Nutritional Quality of U.S. Food Aid: Recommendations for Changes to U.S.

Food Aid Products and Programs (June 2011.

The broad recommendations from the review and the reports include:

1. Improve the formulation of existing Fortified Blended Food (FBF) products used in Title II programming;

2. Upgrade the vitamin and mineral content used in FBFs, oil, and other fortifiable products and diversify approaches to addressing micronutrient needs;

3. Develop or adopt non-cereal based (e.g., lipid-based) products for the management of nutritional deficiencies, as needed;

4. Provide clear and updated programming guidance;

5. Establish an interagency technical committee to coordinate and facilitate government technical processes related to food aid;

6. Enhance processes and quality assurance along the product value chain;

7. Strengthen the evidence base for innovation in products, programming approaches, and institutional processes, through pilot testing select recommended approaches and products.

In addition to the above, the FAQR reports also contained a number of sub-recommendations, i.e., sub-recommendations pertaining to potential follow-on activities that fall under the umbrella of the seven broader recommendations listed above. There were 35 sub-recommendations in all;

the two reports including these recommendations are posted on the FFP website.

FFP worked together with USDA to upgrade the specifications for existing fortified blended food products; introduce lipid-based products for the management of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and moderate acute malnutrition (MAM); advance on the development of an interagency technical mechanism with the World Food Program (WFP), UNICEF, and USDA in order to improve processes, programming, and products related to food aid project design, monitoring and delivery; begin the process of strengthening the evidence base for the use of specialized food products for targeted needs, including a key workshop for partners and technical experts to review protein needs for child growth and development; and develop specifications for additional products.

Through its contractor, FFP successfully completed a feasibility trial in Malawi, testing whether reduced packaging size and inclusion of nutritional messaging could improve targeting and reduce sharing of the doses of fortified blended food (CSB+) and vegetable oil recommended in the reports. The results analysis of the feasibility trial is currently underway and expected to be available by the end of calendar year 2015.

All the FFP supported research will be included in an Open Access database that USAID has developed in order to facilitate access to the evidence developed through research and programming. The FFP database will include all FAQR II and III data related to moderate acute malnutrition as well as other research efforts that FFP is currently supporting. This database will ensure that information is shared through a website designed especially for engaging all interested stakeholders concerning MAM. Some preliminary analysis of the research data in Malawi was presented at international meetings in 2014. An assessment of MAM management, carried out with support from FAQR, was posted on the Community Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) forum website.3 FFP expects that this already available evidence and the evidence to come from research conducted during the implementation phase of the FAQR (FAQR II and III) will inform programs on efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of products to treat MAM. As well as provide programming guidance for MAM, leading to enhanced Title II programming and better use of locally and regionally purchased foods.

FFP has been working to ensure the harmonization of WFP with USAID and USDA specifications for fortified blended flours and targeted food products during the FAQR implementation phase. This has led to improvements in the communication between USDA and USAID and among USAID, UNICEF and WFP on these products as well as to improvements in the process of assuring quality assurance and food safety.

To address FFP and the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO4) concerns, FFP initiated work on two important cost-effectiveness studies looking at four foods for the treatment of MAM and for the prevention of MAM and prevention of further stunting between six and 24 months5. As part of the studies, a tool for field use for the calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the different food interventions has been developed. This tool is being tested in the two cost-effectiveness field studies and will be disseminated to FFP partners as part of the research results.

The prevention study is ongoing in Burkina Faso. The goal is for follow-up of all of the enrolled children to conclude in FY17 and for analysis and dissemination of results to be complete by the end of FY18. Initially, the treatment study took place in Sierra Leone, but after six months of field data collection, it had to be suspended because of the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak.

Several possible alternative sites have been identified and decisions will be made by the end of calendar year 2015 as to a possible alternative site. In order to be able to complete, analyze and disseminate the treatment study results by the time the prevention study and related recommendations are complete (by the end of FY18), FFP will support an immediate start-up for the treatment study.

3 Annan, A. Webb, P. Brown, R. Management of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM): Current Knowledge and Practice CMAM Forum Technical Brief: September 2014 http://www.cmamforum.org/Pool/Resources/MAM-management-CMAM-Forum-Technical-Brief-Sept-2014.pdf 4 GAO. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE Better Nutrition and Quality Control Can Further Improve U.S. Food Aid. May, 2011. http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318210.pdf 5 CSB+ and oil, Supercereal Plus (includes oil in the matrix), Ready-to-use Supplementary Food (RUSF) and Corn Soy Whey Blend (CSB14) and oil.

http://www.cmamforum.org/Pool/Resources/MAM-management-CMAM-Forum-Technical-Brief-Sept-2014.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318210.pdf

With the accumulation of new evidence and also new questions about MAM treatment and prevention resulting during the intervening years, FFP will add two sub-studies into the cost-effectiveness of treatment study. FFP attests that it will be possible to carry out these two new studies within the projected time frame at the new treatment study site and that these sub-studies will enhance FFP and its stakeholder understanding of the cost-effectiveness of the foods.

Taking into account the time necessary for restarting the treatment study along with the finalization and analysis of the data in the prevention study, FFP expects that all of the work will be concluded and disseminated to key stakeholders by the end of calendar year 2018.

Simply stated, the basis of this Statement of Work (SOW) is to finalize the implementation of the recommendations and sub-recommendations that were not completed during FAQR II.

C.2 OBJECTIVES

The overarching objective is to improve the quality of the products, delivery of nutrients, as well as the programming and processes employed in U.S. food aid and programming as analyzed, synthesized, and discussed in the FAQR.

The objective of this SOW is to conclude the implementation of the recommendations of the FAQR by providing evidence on the use of specialized foods to aid FFP decision making on procurement, programming and processes. This work assumes a variety of forms, including, but not limited to the following:

7. Undertaking research into the acceptability and cost effectiveness of new food products

8. Testing of food products

9. Undertaking comparative studies on packaging and delivery (both logistical and nutritional) methodologies and technologies

10. Planning and holding consultative and expert meetings

11. Undertaking literature and research reviews related to food-based delivery of micronutrients in the environments where food aid is required

12. Assessing implementation mechanisms and the cost/benefit analysis of field tools for monitoring and evaluation so that partners can have improved tools for calculating the cost effectiveness of food and food interventions, including specialized foods

In particular, this final phase of the FAQR will use a participatory approach through consultative processes to solicit input from stakeholders early on as the SOW is rolled out. The activities below must be completed during the period of performance:

C.2.1 Research and Development – Improving Existing Products

C.2.1.1 Examining appropriateness of food matrices

The contractor will examine evidence on food matrices and how the composition and structure of food aid products (i.e., Fortified Blended Flours (FBF) or Lipid Nutritional Spreads (LNS) influence overall absorption and utilization of nutrients in FFP targeted populations.) The contractor will undertake relevant literature reviews and utilize, to the extent practicable, a consultative process to finalize reviews.

C.2.1.2 Extrusion Systems

The contractor will collect evidence on extrusion system optimization both from a food functionality (quality control) standpoint and from a food safety management perspective.

Preferably, this should be carried out in partnership with suppliers and partners such as WFP.

The contractor will define a process for engaging with partners on the improvement of extrusion processes.

C.2.1.3 Thermo-processing

The contractor will support USAID, WFP and UNICEF's efforts at assessing thermo-processing of ready-to-eat foods to determine its suitability as a food safety tool in producing ready-to-eat lipid-based spreads and if micronutrient formulations need to be adjusted.

C.2.1.4 Building out the food basket with existing commodities

There are commodities that have been either discontinued from the FFP product list or are almost never used such as wheat soy blend, sorghum grits, soy flour, peanut paste, canned salmon, etc.

The contractor will reassess the discontinued/never used commodities and apply lessons learned from programming attempts to help determine whether these foods could potentially be added back in to the recommended food basket. The contractor will recommend improvements that need to be made to build a better food basket for direct recipients of food aid, by examining discontinued commodities such as, but not limited to, wheat soy blend and sorghum grits and working on any needed updates to micronutrient specifications or other aspects of formulations.

C.2.1.5 Assessment of new products and technologies for an improved food basket

The contractor will provide recommendations on potential new food products and technologies for enhancing the food aid basket in both emergencies and non-emergencies, as well as improving the quality and safety of these products together with partners such as USDA, WFP, Natick Research Labs and the private sector. These may include new formulations for Emergency Food Products, adaptation of some WFP formulations such as Rice-Soy Blend among others. The contractor will obtain prototypes for such new products and technologies, as well as a database of potential suppliers.

C.2.1.6 Infestation

The contractor will address issues around infestation of commodities and work with USAID, USDA, WFP and other partners, such as Natick Research Labs, to develop a strategic approach to resolve the issues. The resolution approach may include new forms of packaging and/or storage.

C.2.1.7 Dual use products for emergency response

The contractor will examine existing or possible strategies for immediate emergency response.

Currently USAID has or procured meal replacements such as Emergency Food Products A20, A28 and A29 or made use of off-the shelf Humanitarian Daily Rations (HDR). WFP has a draft emergency response strategy that recommends the use of medium quantity LNS (MQ-LNS) and High Energy Biscuits (HEBs) that could be for dual use as an emergency meal replacement and a nutritional food supplement for school feeding. Currently USAID does not support WFP school feeding so there are questions about support to this strategy as well as whether it is an adequate strategy. Over a decade ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced a report on high nutrient density foods for humanitarian emergencies6 and the USAID EFPs were developed as a result of these recommendations with support from the Department of Defense Natick Laboratory.7 The contractor will review prior USAID work, commercially available options, as well as ongoing work with WFP. Upon review the contractor will recommend an updated strategy that takes into account lessons learned on emergency meal replacement strategies and considers the possibility of some dual purpose use of any recommended foods as well as technology advances during the last decade. The contractor will consider cost-effective options that may be relatively simple and can be made in partner countries as well as in US and can have shelf-lives comparable to currently used meal replacements (2-5 years).

C.2.1.8 Incorporating new products developed by USDA's micronutrient research

The contractor will assess possible incorporation to FFP commodity list of new products from USDA micronutrient research carried out through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and Foreign Agriculture Service, Food Aid Division (FAS/FAD) through the McGovern- Dole programs.

C.2.1.9 Strategy for assessing cost-effectiveness of new modalities of response to emergencies

The contractor will assist FFP in carrying out an expert assessment of progress to date and assist in finalizing the tools for a cost-effectiveness assessment of new modalities of response to emergencies, including local and regional procurement, as well as cash and vouchers.

C.2.1.10 New formulations for specialized food products

Various researchers are looking at different types and concentrations of milk products in lipid spreads and in fortified, blended flours as well as forms of soy in products for the treatment of

6 Subcommittee on Technical Specifications for a High-Energy Emergency Relief Ration, Committee on Military Nutrition Research, Food and Nutrition Board, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. High-Energy, Nutrient-Dense Emergency Relief Food Product, 2003.

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2003/High-Energy-Nutrient-Dense-Emergency-Relief-Food-Product.aspx

7 Briggs, J. et al. FINAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF AN EMERGENCY FOOD PRODUCT: PRODUCT

AND PACKAGING SPECIFICATIONS, SHELF LIFE

STUDY AND DROP TEST SYNOPSIS. 2007 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADS423.pdf http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2003/High-Energy-Nutrient-Dense-Emergency-Relief-Food-Product.aspx http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADS423.pdf moderate acute malnutrition. The contractor will examine and recommend updates to the food aid specifications taking into account new nutrition knowledge. In addition, the contractor will assist FFP and its partners in developing a decision-making process on which product or products should be added to an improved food basket (i.e., select food aid distribution projects), keeping in mind the necessity to streamline and/or update existing processes.

C.2.1.11 Finalization of all reports on Malawi feasibility of changes in packaging and messaging study on improved targeting

The contractor will finalize all reports and submit data to the USAID website where open access data is posted in addition to submitting all reports to the Development Experience Clearinghouse

(DEC).

C.2.1.12 Conclusion of the cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of stunting and moderate acute malnutrition (location/ongoing: Burkina Faso)

The contractor will continue this study and complete the following:

1) Procure the required foods in amounts sufficient for continuing the field tests and trials as needed8;

2) Develop any additional laboratory studies of the new products as needed;

3) Finalize the prevention field trials which include recruitment and follow-up of 6000 children (approximately 1500 children per type of food for four groups of children) from 6 to 24 months in age, with a follow-up measurement at 30 months including anthropometric measurements, household observations, interviews, any required nutritional status laboratory analysis, analysis of data as approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of host country and contractor’s organization;

4) Assure that all interactions with mothers, caregivers and elderly are carried out by appropriate field staff with appropriate training and that sub-contractors take relevant gender considerations into account;

5) Review the experimental design and development of a model that can be used in cost-effectiveness modeling and application of results in other settings, as well as the eventual publication and sharing of the resulting information and design model.

C.2.1.13 Cost Effectiveness of Four Food Products in MAM Treatment Study

Although a treatment study of the cost-effectiveness of four food products was well underway in Sierra Leone in partnership with WFP and Washington University (Project Peanut Butter), it was

8 The study compares isocaloric amounts of the following foods:

1) Corn Soy Blend 14 (CSB14), with whey protein concentrate and enhanced micronutrient profile, prepared with fortified vegetable oil (FVO)

2) Ready-to Use Supplementary Food (RUSF), a generic Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplement (LNS) product aligned with WHO recommendations for treatment and prevention of moderate acute malnutrition

3) Supercereal Plus (CSB++/SC+), the FBF used by WFP, which has an enhanced nutrient profile, dairy ingredient (non-fat dry milk), and oil already embedded into the CSB

4) Supercereal (CSB+/SC) prepared with FVO suspended because of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic in that country making both clinical work and home visits impossible to continue. The contractor will implement and conclude the treatment study in a new country setting. The contractor will assure that all interactions with mothers and caregivers are carried out by appropriate field staff with appropriate training and that sub-contractors take relevant gender considerations into account;

C.2.1.14 Timing of treatment study in country TBD

The contractor will begin the collection of data for the treatment study in the new treatment site within 150 days of the start of the contract. In addition, the contractor will complete the field research in the new location with all relevant analyses by the end of calendar year 2018. The minimum for the treatment study tasks includes the enrollment and follow-up of up to 6000 children suffering from MAM. The trials will involve four types of foods9. Group size is estimated at 1200 children in each group. Children are to be followed during recuperation sessions for approximately 12 weeks, with a six-month follow-up to assess relapse. Follow-up includes relevant anthropometric measurements, household observations, interviews, and any required laboratory analysis as approved by both host country and contractor’s respective IRBs.

C.2.1.15 Implement two new sub-studies on body composition and environmental enteropathy

a) Sub-component one of the treatment study: The contractor will examine measures of body composition to attempt to improve the measurement of cost-effectiveness of the four foods in recuperation from MAM as well as prevention of relapse. This will help answer questions related to whether measures such as MUAC, weight for height or others are adequate tools for measuring recovery from MAM as well as whether goals should be rapid weight gain or lean body mass accretion in recovery from MAM or whether some combination of the two should be considered. Learning will be shared through various mechanisms including through the final report on the study, an expert meeting and other publications.

b) As a second sub-component of the treatment study: The contractor will look at how gut inflammation (i.e., environmental enteropathy) may affect the utilization of the alternative foods in a subset of the overall study population and whether this may be related to the effectiveness of the food and, ultimately, its cost-effectiveness. The findings will be shared in the final report on the treatment study and through various other mechanisms and publications.

9 Study participants will receive one of four test foods varying in energy and nutrient density as well as amounts provided, according to international protocols. The four foods are:

1. Super Cereal Plus (SC+) at 800 kcal/d, 215 g/d

2. Super Cereal (SC) and oil and sugar at 998 kcal/d – 200 g SC and 20 g oil and 20 g sugar, per day

3. Corn-soy Blend 14 (CSB14) and oil at 978 kcal/day – 150 g CSB14 and 45 g oil, per day

4. Plumpy’Sup – 500 kcal/d, 92 g/d

C.2.2 Improved Programming

The contractor will undertake these specific activities from the FAQR recommendations on improving programming10 by the end of calendar year 2017. The contractor will complete the following key activities:

C.2.2.1 Commodity Reference Guide

The contractor will finalize the Commodity Reference Guide (CRG) strategy and update the CRG and other tools for programming new specialized products. This will include the finalization of templates and institutionalization of a system for updating the frequently asked questions (FAQs) on FFP commodities.

C.2.2.2 Deployment of new specialized products

The contractor will develop, in consultation with key stakeholders, a strategy for the deployment of new specialized products in emergencies and non-emergencies based on evidence from field research.

C.2.2.3 Long-term strategy for sudden onset emergency response

The contractor will develop a long-term strategy for FFP for responding to food needs in the initial stages of a sudden onset emergency.

C.2.2.4 Technical advisory group

The contractor will work with FFP and key stakeholders to establish a process and norms for periodic reviews of nutrition evidence along with a process and schedule for resulting required updates to products.

C.2.2.5 Food and ration technical guidance

The contractor will provide an update of food and ration technical guidance for multi-year development projects and annual program statements for emergency and non-emergency activities;

C.2.2.6 Documentation and dissemination of protocols

The contractor will document and disseminate the protocols used for research and field testing of new products. This will allow for others engaged in research and field testing to ensure effectiveness information is evidence-based.

10 See Chapter 3 Product Selection and Usage-Optimizing Programming, pp. 27-35

C.2.2.7 Cost-effectiveness of tools

The contractor will disseminate a tool or tools so that awardees will be able to calculate the cost-effectiveness linked to the use of different food products, rations, or other food aid design considerations.

C.2.3 Improved Process for Commodity Procurement and Quality Assurance along

Supply Chain

The FAQR recommended a number of process improvements including enhancing coordination across the U.S. food system, modifying processes for the introduction and review of new products and improving quality assurance. FFP, through previous work, has made significant progress in all of these areas including the development of online information systems.

However, now, the contractor must take stock of progress made earlier as well as the development of written guidelines and institutionalization of any of the new processes. The contractor will undertake activities within a set time frame for the FAQR recommended project guidance. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

C.2.3.1 Continuation of institutionalization of a process for ensuring periodic interagency technical consultation

The contractor will assist USAID, USDA and the FACG in institutionalizing the several forms of interagency and/or manufacturer consultations on technical matters related to food aid products and quality assurance that have been developed since the release of the FAQR reports.

C.2.3.2 Development of commodity specification templates

In collaboration with USAID and USDA, the contractor will identify and recommend the most suitable commodity specification system, which would be more in-line with common industry practice. The contractor will facilitate its adoption/uptake, effective use, and a process for easy, timely updating. This task will include reviewing current documents, e.g. Commodity Requirements Document (CRD), Commercial Item Description (CID), and suggesting appropriate modifications, as needed.

C.2.3.3 Continuation of process for strengthening of current interagency technical advisory groups

Currently, there are two interagency technical advisory groups – 1) a US Government (USG) group that includes USAID, USDA, and other relevant USG entities (e.g., Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and

2) an interagency harmonization group that includes USAID, USDA, WFP and UNICEF. The contractor will use and support these advisory groups as channels for providing a forum for product modifications and introductions and review and approval of new food aid products and ingredients, as well as for addressing technical issues related to food aid products programs and processes. The contractor will work together with the stakeholders to establish a sustainable institutional framework to continue the consultative and harmonizing processes within these two technical groups.

C.2.3.4 Continuation of strengthened consultative processes

Contractor will consult with stakeholders, including through the use of an established, interactive FFP-supported website: www.foodaidquality.org. In addition, the contractor will (1) review existing USAID and USDA stakeholder consultative processes, such as the legislatively mandated Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) in relation to food products, quality assurance and food safety, and (2) make recommendations for improving these processes.

C.2.3.5 Improved supply chain oversight

In proposing overall improvements in supply chain oversight, the contractor will take into account lessons learned by USAID, USDA and other collaborating partners such as WFP and UNICEF and complete the following:

i. Conduct an analysis of field challenges and recommendations around commodity handling at distribution sites, which could compromise safety, nutrition of food products and overall delivery efficiency and cost.

ii. Make recommendations based on field evidence for improvements in packaging, storage, handling, etc.

iii. Support the harmonization and improvement of the USAID, USDA, WFP, and UNICEF supply chain management approaches, taking advantage of the opportunities of each and recommending information and management flow changes for improvements and/or enhancements (including time savings) as well as appropriate checks and balances at critical points in the supply chain. These recommendations will take into account the increased amount of local and regional procurement being carried out by USAID and how to assure quality control and food safety of these products.

C.2.3.6 Food Safety and Quality Assurance Feedback Loop

The contractor will support the revamp of the food safety and quality feedback loop developed by POD; the contractor will assess its current status, provide recommendations for necessary improvements and redesign to enhance the user experience, hold one or several discussions with key partners about the loop, and assist USAID in finalizing the update of the loop.

C.2.3.7 Food safety and quality assurance in U.S. procured and locally/regionally procured products

The contractor will institutionalize improvements in Food Safety and Quality Assurance. The contractor will undertake at a minimum the following:

a) Support FFP’s food technologist in leading the process of transition from Good

Manufacturing Practices (GMP) to using the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points http://www.foodaidquality.org/

(HACCP) approach as a basis for food safety and quality assurance. This undertaking will support the harmonization of auditing, sampling and inspection of processing facilities according to the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act and must be implemented by 2017. Activities include review of Commodity Requirements Documents, fine-tuning of start-up audit processes, and the development of protocols for food safety inspections under the new systems.

b) Review and propose a systematic approach to procuring foods locally or regionally for both emergency and development activities assuring compliance with internationally agreed upon standards for food safety and quality assurance.

c) Support FFP and its partners in developing mechanisms for assessing quality and safety of locally procured food aid products.

C.2.4 Transition from Current FAQR Contractors

It is of critical importance to USAID to ensure the quickest and smoothest transition in the ongoing prevention field trials in Burkina Faso as well as all of the other elements described in Section C.3 from the existing FAQR II to the new FAQR III project. It is also important to ensure a comprehensive knowledge transfer between the current FAQR II contractor and the new FAQR III contractor(s).

To this end, the FAQR III contractor(s) must start up and escalate operations while the current contractor providing FAQRII services phases out activities, thus operating in near parallel for an estimated period as much as 6 months to ensure a successful transition. This transition will require all existing and new contracting parties to collaborate as directed by USAID in support of the overall mission of improving the nutritional value, quality assurance and food safety of food assistance as recommended in the Food Aid Quality Review recommendations. Consultations must occur between the Contractor and the current contractors carrying out FAQRII services to identify transition priorities.

Transition activities may include, but are not limited, to the following:

• Sharing existing Standard Operation Procedures related to developing specifications, tools for evaluating cost-effectiveness, research protocols, etc.;

• Sharing the information on sampling laboratories with experience with the testing of the specialized commodities, the commodities that they hold in storage as well as contact information;

• Sharing lists of vendors of the specialized commodities;

• Sharing all data and legacy testing results;

• Attendance at coordinated interagency and harmonization meetings with partner agencies

(WFP, UNICEF, USDA), suppliers, partner governments (i.e. Burkina Faso and Treatment country).

Transition will be complete when the FAQRIII contractor has:

• Established sub-contractual agreements with in-country research and distribution partners as well as with science partners;

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the ongoing prevention and treatment research studies;

• Established agreements with key laboratories for necessary Quality Assurance testing

• Established agreements with vendors to purchase the necessary foods for the continuation of the field studies;

• Established a fully operational office for all of the necessary elements of this SOW as well as in-country offices to continue the field trials;

• Taken over all technical assistance activities.

Should there be another transition at the end of this contract, the contractor is expected to take part in transition activities that will be specified by USAID.

[END OF SECTION C]