SSPA RFP 72061720R00008 FINAL 01072021 (Signed).pdf

U.S. Agency for International Development US Mission Compound – South Wing 1577 Ggaba Road, Nsambya P.O. Box 7856 Kampala, Uganda

Tel: (256 - 414) 306-001 Fax: (256 - 414) 306-661 http://uganda.usaid.gov

International Address:

USAID/Uganda DOS/USAID, 2190 Kampala Place Washington DC 20521-2190 Tel: 202-216-6234

Issuance Date: January 7, 2021 Closing Date for submission of questions: January 25, 2021 Closing Time for submission of questions: 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Closing Date for Submission of Past Performance: February 8, 2021 Closing Time for Submission of Past Performance: 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Closing Date for submission of proposals: February 22, 2021 Closing Time for submission of proposals: 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) Number: 72061720R00008, USAID Strengthening Systems and Public Accountability (SSPA) Activity

Dear Sir/Madam:

USAID/Uganda, in cooperation with UKAID, is seeking proposals from qualified organizations interested in providing services to improve the government of Uganda’s responsiveness to citizens, service delivery, and stewardship of resources through strengthened accountability, deepened public participation and oversight, and reduced corruption in Uganda’s public service sectors.

USAID will conduct this procurement under full and open competition under which any type of organization (U.S. and Non-U.S. commercial for-profit firms, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations) is eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 apply.

USAID anticipates awarding a five-year Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Term type contract with a total estimated cost between $35,000,000 and $40,000,000. The purpose of providing an estimate is to help Offerors develop their proposals. Offerors should propose costs that are appropriate, realistic, and reasonable, and are in accordance with their proposed approach for achieving results. The Final LOE and contract amount will be negotiated based on the successful offeror's proposal.

The RFP and any amendments to this solicitation will be issued and posted on the FBO website at https://beta.sam.gov/. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website periodically for official updates and amendments to the solicitation. It is the responsibility of the recipient of this solicitation document to ensure that it has been received from the internet in its entirety and USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.

Offerors are encouraged to read the entire solicitation, which includes the closing date and time, all pertinent contract requirements, and the conditions and instructions required for submitting a proposal. Pursuant to Block 12 of Standard Form 33 of this RFP, USAID requires that offers remain valid through a period of 250 days.

https://beta.sam.gov/

Offerors must e-mail questions and proposals in response to this solicitation to Farrah Musoke, Acquisition Specialist, at KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov. No other forms of submission will be accepted.

The authorized geographic code for the procurement of goods and services under this Activity is 937. The North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) code for this Activity is 541990.

Issuance of this solicitation does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government to award a contract nor does it commit the U.S. Government to pay for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers, if such action is considered to be in the best interest of the Government.

Thank you for your interest in the USAID Strengthening Systems and Public Accountability (SSPA) Activity.

Best regards, R. Brian Aaron Contracting Officer mailto:KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

USAID/UGANDA

PLOT 1577 GGABA ROAD

KAMPALA, UGANDA

Email: KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER RATING PAGE OF

1 of

PAGES

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER 4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION 5. DATE ISSUED

SEE COVER PAGE

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

7. ISSUED BY

CODE 617 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

(If other than Item 7)

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

9. Sealed offers in original and Electronic only copies for furnishing 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 n/a until (see Cover Letter and section L.7 for date and time).

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.

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

AREA CODE

+256-414

NUMBER

306-001

EXT.

6512 KampalaUSAIDSolicita@USAID.gov

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

PART I - THE SCHEDULE PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

X A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

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

X C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT X J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

X D PACKAGING AND MARKING PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

X E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

X F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

X G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA X L INSTR., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

X H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS X M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

X K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER 69

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 __250______ 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 price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT 10 CALENDAR DAYS (%) 20 CALENDAR DAYS (%) 30 CALENDAR DAYS (%) CALENDAR DAYS (%) (See Section I, Clause No. 52-232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT NO. DATE AMENDMENT NO. DATE

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

CODE FACILITY 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER 15A. NAME AND

ADDRESS

OF OFFEROR

(Type or print)

15B. TELEPHONE NUMBER 17. SIGNATURE 18. OFFER DATE

AREA CODE NUMBER EXT. 15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT FROM

ABOVE - ENTER SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE

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

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION: 23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM REF SECTION G.5 (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

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

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

CODE

CODE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

R. Brian Aaron

27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

28. AWARD DATE

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

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

(REV. 9-97)

10. FOR INFORMATION CALL:

Farrah Musoke

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

STANDARD FORM 33

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

SOLICITATION

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

N/A

72061720R00008 REQ-617-20-000026

X

1 copy, Refer to Section G.5 javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$ctl00$body$homebody$BuyerWorkload$C$BuyerWorkloadControl$ResultsGrid$ctl00$ctl04$RequisitionNumberLink','')

RFP No: 72061720R00008 USAID Strengthening Systems and Public Accountability

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

PART I - THE SCHEDULE 6

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS 6

B.1 PURPOSE 6

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE 6

B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT 6

B.4 BUDGET 6

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS 7

B.6 CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS 7

B.7 COST REIMBURSABLE 7

B.8 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE 7

SECTION C - STATEMENT OF WORK 9

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING 32

D.1 CO-BRANDING AND CO-MARKING 32

D.2 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993) 32

D.3 BRANDING AND MARKING POLICY 32

D.4 BRANDING STRATEGY 33

D.5 APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR BRANDING IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKING PLAN 33

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 34

E.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 34

E.2 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 34

E.3 ACTIVITY MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN (AMELP) & PDIA 34

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 35

F.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 35

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE 35

F.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE 35

F.4 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES 35

F.5 DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES 39

F.6 KEY PERSONNEL 42

F.7 LEVEL OF EFFORT 45

F.8 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTS (SEP 2013) 46

F.9 ANNUAL LOCALLY INCURRED COST AUDITS 48

F.10 UKAID DEEP DIVE REVIEW 48

F.11 SSPA ACTIVITY EVALUATION 48

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 49

G.1 752.7003 DOCUMENTATION FOR PAYMENT (NOV 1998) 49

G.2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICE 50

G.3 CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) 50

G.4 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIP WITH USAID 50

G.5 TECHNICAL APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS 52

G.6 PAYING OFFICE 52

G.7 ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA 52

G.8 INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS 53

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 54

H.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 54

H.2 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES (JAN 2002) 54

H.3 DEFENSE BASE ACT (DBA) INSURANCE FOR 2015-2021 54

H.4 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE 55

H.5 LOGISTIC SUPPORT 55

H.6 CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT 55

H.7 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT 56

H.8 752.229-71 REPORTING OF FOREIGN TAXES (JULY 2007) 56

H.9 752.222-70 USAID DISABILITY POLICY (DEC 2004) 57

H.10 752.245-71 TITLE TO AND CARE OF PROPERTY (APR 1984) 58

H.11 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007) 58

H.12 722.170 EMPLOYMENT OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS (TCNS) AND COOPERATING COUNTRY

NATIONALS (CCNS) 58

H.13 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT 59

H.14 MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES 60

H.15 VALUE ADDED TAX AND CUSTOMS DUTIES 60

H.16 752.7032 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (APR 2014) 61

H.17 NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES 61

H.18 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS 61

H.19 EMPLOYMENT COSTS OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS (TCNS) AND COOPERATING COUNTRY

NATIONALS (CCNS) 61

H.20 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MANAGEMENT 62

H.21 752.222-71 NONDISCRIMINATION (JUNE 2012) 63

H.22 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS SYSTEM 64

H.23 BUSINESS CLASS TRAVEL 64

H.24 USAID IMPLEMENTING PARTNER NOTICES (IPN) PORTAL FOR ACQUISITION (JULY 2014) 65

H.25 USAID-FINANCED THIRD-PARTY WEB SITES (AUG 2013) 66

H.26 752.231-72 CONFERENCE PLANNING AND REQUIRED APPROVALS (AUG 2013) 67

H.27 SUBMISSION OF DATASETS TO THE DEVELOPMENT DATA LIBRARY (DDL) (OCT 2014) 68

H.28 752.231-71 SALARY SUPPLEMENTS FOR HG EMPLOYEES (MARCH 2015) 69

H.29 ALLOWABLE USG FUNDING SUPPORT FOR GOU ENTITIES AND STAFF 69

H.30 ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY (MAY 2016) 69

H.31 USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NOTIFICATION (MAY 2016) (DEVIATION NO. M/OAA-DEV-FAR- 16-1C) 70

H.32 CLOUD COMPUTING (MAY 2016) 71

H.33 SHOCK MODIFIER 75

H.34 COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 508 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED 77

H.35 PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS (JUNE 1999) 77

H.36 EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM FINANCING 78

H.37 NONEXPENDABLE PROPERTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES 78

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES 79

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES 79

I.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 79

I.2 52.203-13 CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (JUN 2020)) 85

I.3 52.217-2 CANCELLATION UNDER MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS (OCT 1997) 88

I.4 752.242-70 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS (OCT 2007) 90

I.5 752.225-70 SOURCE AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012) 91

I.6 752.245-70 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY—USAID REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (JULY 1997) 91

I.7 52.203-99 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH ENTITIES THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN INTERNAL

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS (APR 2015) 92

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS 94

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND REFERENCED BY LINK 94

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 95

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

K.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 95

K.2 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (MAR 2020) 95

K.3 INSURANCE - IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY 99

K.4 52.204-3 TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION (OCT 1998) 99

K.5 52.209-2 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH INVERTED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS—

REPRESENTATION (NOV 2015) 100

K.6 52.209-5 CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (AUG 2020) 101

K.7 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (OCT 2018) 103

K.8 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION (JUN 2020) 104

K.9 52.230-7 PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE--COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CHANGES (APR 2005) 106 K.10 52.222-38 COMPLIANCE WITH VETERANS EMPLOYMENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2016) 107 K.11 52.209-11 REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATIONS REGARDING DELINQUENT TAX LIABILITY OR A

FELONY CONVICTION UNDER ANY FEDERAL LAW (FEB 2016) 107

K.12 52.203-19, PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING CERTAIN INTERNAL CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS OR

STATEMENTS (JAN 2017) 107

K.13 52.215-6 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (OCT 1997) 108

K.14 52.222-56 CERTIFICATION REGARDING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS COMPLIANCE PLAN (MAR 2015) 108

K.15 52.204-24 REPRESENTATION REGARDING CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO

SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (AUG 2020) 109

K.16 52.204-26 COVERED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES-REPRESENTATION (OCT 2020) 112

K.17 AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS 112

K.18 SIGNATURE 112

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 114

L.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 114

L.2 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984) 114

L.3 52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006) 114

L.4 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS 115

L.5 SUBMISSION/DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS 115

L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 116

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL 122

L.8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF BRANDING AND MARKING PLANS 128

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 131

M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION 131

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 131

M.3 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION 133

M.4 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE 134

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION AND CONTRACT AWARD 135

ACRONYMS

AIDAR USAID Acquisition Regulation

ADS Automated Directives System

AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

CLIN Cost Line Item

CO Contracting Officer

COR Contracting Officer Representative

CPFF Cost Plus Fixed Fee

DFID Department for International Development

DO Development Objective

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations

FCDO Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office

GIS Geographic Information Specialist

GOU Government of Uganda

GUC Grants Under Contracts

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

RFP Request for Proposal

SOW Statement of Work

TBD To Be Determined

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG U.S. Government

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the contract is to improve the government of Uganda’s responsiveness to citizens, service delivery, and stewardship of resources through strengthened accountability, deepened public participation and oversight, and reduced corruption in Uganda’s public service sectors.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Term type contract. For the consideration set for the below, the Contractor must perform the services and provide the deliverables or outcomes described in Section C and Section F, in accordance with 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 must not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount in accordance with the Limitation of Funds Clause, FAR 52.232.22.

(c) Funds obligated hereunder are anticipated to be sufficient through TBD.

B.4 BUDGET

The total cost (including fixed fee) stated below shall not be adjusted without a written modification signed by the Contracting Officer. No amounts in excess of the amounts specified for each line item (CLINs) below shall be billed against the Contract.

CLIN Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 001 Direct Costs (Long & Short

Term Professional incl Consultants

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

002 Administrative personnel & Operations Costs (ODC)

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

003 Grants Under Contract (GUCs)* TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NTE 8 Million

004 Indirect Costs TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total Estimated Cost TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 005 Fixed Fee TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total Estimated Cost-Plus Fixed TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Fee

* The total budget for Grants Under Contracts to local entities is limited to $8 million and does not include any relevant management or administrative expenses incurred by the Contractor.

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs will be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases:

Description Rate Base Type Period

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Base of Application: TBD Type of Rate: TBD Period: TBD Source: TBD

B.6 CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS

(a) Reimbursement for indirect costs will be at the lower of the negotiated final pre-determined/provisional rates or the following ceiling rates:

Description 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX

[Rate 1 description to be inserted] ___% ___% ____% ____% _____% [Rate 2 description to be inserted] ___% ___% ____% ____% _____% [Rate 3 description to be inserted] ___% ___% ____% ____% _____%

The government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount on account of indirect costs above the ceiling rates established in the contract. This advance understanding will not change any monetary imitation, or obligation established in the contract.

B.7 COST REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable will be limited to reasonable, allocable and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (August 2018), FAR 52.216-8, Fixed Fee (June 2011), and AIDAR 752.7003, Documentation for Payment.

B.8 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

Payment of fixed fee will be in accordance with FAR 52.216-8. The Contracting Officer (CO) will withhold 15% of the total fee or $100,000.00, whichever is less, until the required award conditions under the reference clause have been met.

Two exceptions to paying fixed fee in this manner may apply:

1. If the CO determines that this method results in paying a disproportionately higher ratio of fixed fee than the percentage of work that the Contractor has completed, then the CO may suspend the payment of any fixed fee until the Contractor has made sufficient progress to justify further payment, up to the agreed percentage.

2. The clauses entitled “Allowable Costs and Payment” (FAR 52.216-7) and “Fixed Fee” (FAR 52.216-8) are incorporated into this contract.

[END OF SECTION B]

SECTION C - STATEMENT OF WORK

1. Purpose

The Strengthening Systems and Public Accountability (SSPA) activity aims to improve the government of Uganda’s responsiveness to citizens, service delivery, and stewardship of resources through strengthened accountability, deepened public participation and oversight, and reduced corruption in Uganda’s public service sectors. SSPA will strengthen public sector leadership and accountability for results in targeted sectors, support citizen and civil society engagement on corruption, and support the rewards and sanctions standards under the Ministry of Public Service, norms, and behaviors that enable the abuse of public office for private gain.

2. Scope

USAID and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) partner to jointly fund SSPA. The activity will work with communities and subnational governments across broad geographic coverage, including Northern Uganda, the Albertine region, key municipalities and secondary cities, and other districts. SSPA will also engage national government institutions extensively.

The SSPA activity seeks to advance three objectives.

Objective 1: On the demand side, the Activity will increase citizen voice, coalition building, and public engagement with the government to reduce corruption and increase accountability. The activity will support sustained civic demand and empowerment for greater transparency, strengthening civil society, the private sector, and the media, and creating a voice that holds the government to a high standard of integrity and performance.

Objective 2: On the supply side, the Activity will strengthen local government and municipality systems and practices for improved public accountability. The activity will promote improved accountability processes, optimize resource utilization, build strong systems of monitoring and reporting, review decentralization policies and improve performance through anti-corruption strategies.

Objective 3: Under this objective, the Activity will improve key systems, practices, standards, and norms of target national anti-corruption and accountability institutions. The activity will target selected national and sub-national institutions to improve service delivery, limit opportunities for corruption, and deepen accountable governance. Where possible, efforts at the national level should link to programming with sub-national actors and institutions.

In addition to the three objectives, SSPA will work on targeted sectors, including the extractive industry, countering wildlife crime-related corruption, accountability in refugee-hosting districts, effective use and accountability of funds in the education sector, and others as opportunities arise. The creative approaches to curb corruption by advancing the three objectives will be explicitly tested and piloted across these cross-cutting target sectors.

3 Background

3.1 Overview

The SSPA activity will advance community-driven accountability and reduce the incidence of corruption in Uganda. SSPA will support open, inclusive, and accountable governance in Uganda at both national and sub-national levels.

Accountability is a core pillar of USAID’s work in strengthening democratic government and effective public administration. Accountability is essential to realize the aspirations of USAID/Uganda’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and is a key component of the PITA principles (Participation, Inclusion, Transparency, and Accountability) of USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Strategy. These elements are self-reinforcing; by deepening inclusive public participation and ensuring transparency, citizens can hold the government accountable for results and appropriate stewardship of financial and natural resources. USAID/Uganda has supported accountability efforts in Uganda for several years; this activity will be the next iteration of the Mission’s evolving approach.

Corruption takes many forms, each with different drivers, norms, and consequences. Since USAID’s 2005 Anti-corruption Strategy, the agency has used Transparency International’s simple definition: “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.”1 While the Agency’s approach to corruption has evolved substantially since that strategy, the fundamental idea of what constitutes corruption remains the same.

Corruption distorts public decision-making, discourages private-sector development, and undermines service delivery and the fair application of the law. Just as often, corruption serves as the only means to get public services rendered. Nepotism and cronyism in procurement, bribery, absenteeism, and wage theft all subvert public purpose for private benefit.

Successful strategies to combat corruption are place- and context-specific, dealing directly with social norms and ingrained practices in communities. Approaches must consider incentives for and against corruption, and how various actors can partner in a network to resist it. The literature on anti-corruption is littered with failed or minimally impactful initiatives, and not one best practice exists. USAID anti-corruption efforts must be reflective, acknowledge when an approach isn’t working, and pivot quickly to where there is most traction. Change in this sector is incremental and depends enormously on the political will of individual and institutional actors-- what works in one place may not work in another.

3.2 Ugandan Context

“Corruption has been elevated to the level of an ideology, the culture of the successful in politics, religion, business and public administration.” 2

1 Transparency International, https://www.transparency.org/what-is-corruption 2 Tumwesigye 1996, p.87

Weak governance and accountability are key barriers to inclusive development that includes the most vulnerable. Corruption in Uganda is widespread, posing a major obstacle to the country’s social and economic development and provision of quality public services. In a 2014 report by the Uganda National Governance Baseline Survey (UNGBS), 73% of the people surveyed identified corruption as a serious national problem. Despite the proliferation of anti-corruption and investigatory commissions and promises of “Hakuna Mchezo” ーthe slogan for President Museveni’s anti-graft effortsー meaningful improvements in accountability and anti-corruption have been hard to come by. In Transparency International’s estimation, corruption in Uganda has actually gotten worse in recent years. As Uganda slides lower on their index, recent reports claim that “corruption-related challenges in the country are a result of a lack of separation between the public and private spheres, leading to extensive clientelistic practices and patronage, as well as widespread political corruption.”3 Slow progress on corruption and accountability is not caused by a lack of technical expertise; it is a product of politics, vested personal interests, weak enforcement, and misaligned incentives. As Uganda continues to prioritize large-scale infrastructure and capital investments and prepares for substantial development of its nascent oil and gas sector, the stakes of corruption get higher, and opportunities for it multiply.

Service provision and the business of government is undermined by resource leakages and inconsistent application of the rules. For example, the World Bank IFC’s 2013 “Doing Business in Uganda” report details the propensity for bribery as businesses try to speed up or circumvent complex regulations and registration processes. 10% of survey respondents admitted offering bribes or paying for services that were meant to be free in the health sector, while two-thirds reported major concerns about corruption in the Uganda Police Force4. Examples of corruption reports are varied and widespread, including abuse of office, fraud and embezzlement, cost inflation, misappropriation of public funds and assets, paying for goods or services not delivered, absenteeism and salaries to ghost workers, false declarations of imports and exports, bribery and extortion, demands for commissions for work completed, and nepotism.

While several anti-corruption institutions exist in Uganda, most have scant resources given their mandates.

Most Ugandans are not meaningfully engaged with anti-corruption institutions, and the watchdog role of civil society organizations (CSOs) has yielded limited results. While community engagement and participation are critical to fighting corruption and improving accountability, many Ugandans remain politically disengaged on the issue.

When assessing corruption in Uganda, it is constructive to examine three common forms it can take:

● Petty corruption: Individual public officials abuse their offices by demanding bribes and kickbacks-often soliciting private payment to do their public job. Conversely, individuals abet corruption to circumvent bureaucratic bottlenecks, avoid legally applicable costs, or to receive services they should receive for free.

● Grand corruption: The theft or misuse of vast amounts of public resources by state officials, especially members of the political elite.

3 Transparency International: Overview of Corruption in Uganda U4 Report

4 2014 UNGBS

● State capture and influence peddling: Collusion by private actors with public officials or politicians for their mutual private gain. The political class, public servants, and private parties extort public funds for private gain. This often includes influence peddling, outright theft, seeking commissions on contracts, selective enforcement in the justice sector, and interfering with procurement processes.

The impacts of these practices are hard to overstate. The resultant effects of corruption include undermining political and economic stability, decreased public tax compliance and weakened domestic revenue mobilization, poor value for money in public projects, discouraging foreign direct investment (FDI), poor quality or total collapse of public service provision, demoralization of public servants, institutional decay, and the weakening of the rule of law.

This activity will address the following core problem:

Lack of accountability and endemic corruption in Uganda undermine democracy, development, and service delivery.

3.3 Current and Past USAID/DFID Interventions: Lessons Learned

USAID and DFID reviewed anti-corruption efforts in Uganda and worldwide, and consulted numerous civil society organizations, government officials, and donors. This review revealed that successful programs are politically attuned and context-specific, and consistently test and adapt approaches to changing local system dynamics. USAID and DFID also reviewed lessons from two separate prior efforts

- a DFID-funded anti-corruption activity as well as a USAID-DFID jointly funded accountability program

- and identified that a joint collaboration addressing both issues will be the right approach to effectively address this complex challenge.

USAID/Uganda and DFID have been supporting the Governance, Accountability, Participation and Performance (GAPP) activity to increase public participation, accountability, and effective local governance in Uganda. The GAPP activity revealed key lessons for successful accountability programming in Uganda. First, GAPP demonstrated the importance of a holistic, “systems thinking” approach. GAPP worked through national institutions and local governments simultaneously, working to improve the functioning of Ugandan governance wherever willing partners could be found. This included both technical and political staff. Demand-side interventions that supported civil society and community-based priorities also proved to be a sustainable way to build momentum and citizen voice. GAPP also successfully piloted a “tripartite” accountability model, convening community leaders, private sector and different audiences and institutions together in public hearings for mutual accountability. The model enhanced accountability by subjecting local government operations to public scrutiny. Other successful strategies identified from the GAPP experience include: making state institutions more resilient to political pressure, building the capacity of local government alongside national institutions, enhancing service delivery and government accountability, and supporting the voice of non-state actors.

SUGAR-TAF, funded by DFID, supports national institutions with a mandate to tackle corruption by improving the operation and coordination of core functions across these institutions. The program also supports “institutions under transformation” such as institutions where there is a combination of political will, national importance and leadership aimed at increasing integrity, accountability and tackling corruption effectively. An important lesson from this activity was the significance of making strategic choices throughout the life of the activity that were driven by contextual relevance, learning and adaptation.

The activity also highlighted the need to remain realistic about the scale of the challenges faced, their political nature, the need for risk mitigation measures, and the inadequacy of narrow technical, blueprint approaches.

From 2009 to 2011, USAID and the Millenium Challenge Corporation implemented the Anti-Corruption Country Threshold Program (ACP). This intervention demonstrated how the application of administrative authority can drive “institutional will” and play a significant role in overcoming bureaucratic challenges.

The ACP saw the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Court, the Police Anti-Corruption Unit and a case referral and follow up mechanism all established through administrative action instead of through complex legal and policy procedures. A negative outcome of the program was internal transfers and re-deployments of government staff whose capacity was built by the Program, which undermined project success.

Therefore, when focusing only on actors, rather than systems, there is a high risk of losing progress.

Please see Attachment J.2 for more detail on other development partner interventions in Uganda addressing accountability and anti-corruption.

3.4 Preliminary Problem Analysis

Design analysis revealed four key enabling factors of corruption and poor accountability.

Norms and Expectations

● Entrenched norms and social expectations of public servants to use their positions for the financial benefit of themselves, families, and communities

● Factional politics, political disenfranchisement, poor and inconsistent public servant pay, and a sense that the allocation of public resources is not fair or equitable undermines respect for the system, causes people to define “fair” for themselves

● Collective action challenges and a sense of resignation to “the way things work”

● Social ties and loyalty within community discourage reporting, causing what some term

“community corruption”

● Shades of grey, ideas of what constitutes “good corruption” and ‘bad corruption”

Corruption Gets Things Done

● Many state institutions already have low capacity

● The poor have few or no other options than public service provision, even if they are forced to pay a bribe

● Lengthy bureaucratic processes and red tape can be circumvented by corruption

● Donors and CSOs frequently step in to fill service delivery gaps

● For the professional class and wealthy, complying with corruption or soliciting special treatment is often easier, more convenient, or less costly

Incentives and Disincentives

● Widespread impunity, weak enforcement, well-connected and wealthy officials unlikely to face administrative or legal consequences

● Officials who are caught are frequently transferred to another job, sometimes even a better one

● Political interference and selective application of the law

● Many public servants are poorly paid, corruption supplements their income

● Lack of incentives to engage the poor and marginalized in participatory governance

Leadership and Institutions

● Regulatory and policy gaps and poor implementation

● Easy to mimic institutional forms without real functionality for accountability actors

● Transparency, financial management, and procurement bodies are under-resourced, sometimes intentionally

● Anti-corruption champions have limited influence, are scattered and disconnected

● Political patronage sustains the status quo

● Dramatic growth of the scale of local and national government, more layers where corruption can occur

● Systemic fracturing undermines cooperation between government institutions

● Lack of fora for public engagement and problem solving

3.5 Alignment to USAID and DFID Strategy

USAID’s 2016-2021 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) proposes an integrated approach that brings together a range of interventions to help Uganda fully realize the potential of its people and resources. SSPA will primarily contribute to Development Objective 3: “Key systems more accountable and responsive to Uganda’s development needs” under USAID/Uganda’s CDCS. It may also directly or indirectly contribute to the other development objectives and intermediate results (IRs) through its multi-sectoral engagement. The activity will indirectly contribute to the resilience development objectives under IR 1.1.1, “Behaviors that reduce vulnerability strengthened.” The support to civil society and local communities will strengthen the ability of vulnerable communities to speak out and demand accountability, as well as collaborate with their leaders for improved service delivery. The activity has the potential to contribute to IRs across the CDCS. SSPA also responds directly to the Agency’s renewed focus on sustainability and the “journey to self-reliance.” Public accountability and anti-corruption efforts are crucial to advance Uganda’s ability to chart its own development destiny, with robust citizen participation and appropriate stewardship of public resources.

SSPA is also aligned with the United Kingdom (UK)’s Africa Strategy 2018 that identifies governance as core to building Africa’s prosperity, stability and resilience in the UK’s long-term national interest. The strategy emphasizes the importance of building strong institutions and building trust between those institutions and the people who are governed by them. DFID’s new Governance Position Paper 2018 emphasizes the importance of thinking and working politically, ensuring that all of the UK’s international engagement supports governance - leads on anti-corruption measures, tackles illicit flows, and builds democratic space. Refer to DFID’s Digital Strategy 2018-2020 (See attachment J.18). DFID’s Digital

Strategy 2018-2020 (See attachment J.18). SSPA is further aligned to USAID ‘s Digitization Strategy5 with the objective to strengthen the openness, inclusiveness, and security of country-level digital ecosystems, financial inclusion, and support accountability and transparency in governance.

3.6 Alignment with Government of Uganda Strategies

The activity also aligns with Uganda’s National Development Plan (NDP) II: “Strengthening Uganda’s Competitiveness for Sustainable Wealth Creation, Employment and Inclusive Growth.” NDP II underscores the importance of strengthening mechanisms for quality, effective, and efficient service delivery as its fourth objective, which this activity will directly support. SSPA will also contribute to Uganda’s support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda, particularly goal 16 on peace and governance.

The activity will also advance the objectives of Uganda’s Accountability Sector Strategic Investment Plan, whose aims include: (i) Enhance the prevention, detection, and elimination of corruption by strengthening the enforcement of the existing legal framework; and strengthening the capacity of investigation and prosecution, ombudsman, ethics and integrity functions; (ii) Increase public demand for accountability by strengthening the capacity of the public to demand for accountability; and build CSOs’ capacity to detect and report corruption and anti-money laundering; sensitize CSOs on government projects; and develop and implement information sharing protocols.

In 2011, the Government of Uganda, through the Ministry of Public Service, formulated an eight-point policy paper on the transformation of Uganda’s public service with the aim to increase efficiency within the sector including strengthening supervision, coordination, monitoring and evaluation and inspection functions, improving staff recruitment and selection methods, implementing a stringent performance management system, among a few. While not all of these approaches will form a part of SSPA’s intervention for stronger governance, accountability, and anti-corruption efforts, they are illustrative of the reform efforts already underway in Uganda.

4. Activity Objectives

4.1 Introduction

The goal of the SSPA activity is to improve the government of Uganda’s responsiveness to citizens, service delivery, and stewardship of resources through strengthened accountability. The objectives contribute to the following broad theory of change: If citizens, civil society, and government institutions more effectively fight corruption and ensure public accountability, then governance, service delivery, and financial and natural resource stewardship will be improved.

In addition to the three objectives, SSPA will work on targeted cross-cutting sectors including the extractive industry, countering wildlife crime-related corruption, accountability in refugee-hosting districts, effective use and accountability of funds in the education sector, and others as opportunities arise.

5 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/USAID_Digital_Strategy.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/USAID_Digital_Strategy.pdf

4.2 Objectives

Objective 1: Increased citizen voice, coalition building, and public engagement with government to reduce corruption and increase accountability

Activities under this objective, SSPA will focus on engaging non-state actors, including citizens, youth groups, religious and cultural institutions, CSOs, CBOs, media, and the private sector. Efforts should work to increase these actors’ impact on national and sub-national government accountability, corruption prevalence, and policymaking. Effective participation from these actors is essential to drive the accountability and anti-corruption agenda for lasting impact. Approaches might include citizen committees, youth groups, collaboration with media houses, or coalition building with CSOs. Robust public engagement must provide a check on inappropriate use of public office, increase and mobilize demand for better governance and service delivery, and hold leadership accountable.

Activities will seek to build on existing momentum for engagement and reform and specify entry points whether national, regional, or local. For example, strengthening the voice of communities might include select interventions with cultural institutions, Local Government Public Accounts Committees (LGPACs), School Management Committees (SMCs), Village Health User Committees (VHTs), Water User Committees, youth groups, Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) and farmer groups and extension services, to name a few. Activities should engage youth in both rural and urban areas to hold their leaders accountable. Many community watchdog formations already exist in Uganda, and offer a useful entry point in this area.

Network and coalition building is a fundamental outcome of this activity. Networks and coalitions can serve key functions in effective governance in participation by aggregating and amplifying voice, sharing information, lowering barriers to entry and participation, defining new spaces, norms, and fora for engagement, and brokering access with formal government institutions. USAID anticipates activity to leverage networks and coalition building to deliver on the overall objective and complement work in the other outcomes of the SSPA activity. CSO networks may fight corruption work by linking national and regional efforts on anti-corruption, while others may play a convening role around accountability in budgets and public expenditures. Activities may also explore partnerships with the private sector where meaningful contributions can be made to anti-corruption and accountability initiatives, and might include partnerships with industry groups and professional associations.

Whistleblowing in Uganda is limited, with many Ugandan citizens reluctant to report out of fear, loyalty, apathy, or lack of alternatives. Many Ugandans express skepticism that anything can be done about corruption, greatly reducing their will to engage. Interventions here might target both the enabling environment for whistleblowing and attempt to influence individuals’ willingness to engage and report.

SSPA may include strategies for targeting norms, attitudes, and practices around accountability and anti-corruption, which can be a driver of change or foundational barrier. The three are not the same-- individuals may view corruption as a social ill, yet still perpetuate it. Corruption goes beyond a simple moral calculation. It is frequently a classic “collective action” problem. Test strategies to engage here, test what works with which places and actors, and adapt programming accordingly. This activity should engage both ordinary citizens and non-state actors to help identify, report, and punish corrupt practices.

SSPA can also shape how accountability and corruption topics are reported and understood by working directly with media houses. A free media, vibrant civil society, private sector, and engaged communities are crucial components for improved governance and fighting corruption.

Objective 2: Strengthened local government and municipality systems and practices for improved public accountability

This objective will strengthen public service delivery by strengthening district local governments and municipalities and supporting the decentralization policy framework to increase public engagement, effectiveness, and accountability. Subnational governments, as the sites of service delivery and the institutions closest to communities, are fundamental to public accountability, reducing corruption, and ensuring responsive, high-quality service delivery. Many of these entities implement transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption efforts, yet face resource constraints, coordination challenges, and insufficient political will. Strengthening these institutions and building their capacity will ensure progress on anti-corruption and accountability in Uganda.

Public engagement efforts under Objective 1 should be directly linked to work under SSPA Objective 2.

Frequently, local governments are the primary fora for community and citizen engagement with the state.

As the activity works to strengthen non-state actors’ ability to demand accountable governance, it must also build the will, practices, and capacity of state institutions to deliver and be responsive, especially at the local level.

The SSPA activity will support organizational development efforts for relevant local institutions to build their ability to deliver on, and advocate on behalf of, their mandates. Internal staff performance management, planning, budgeting, financial management, procurement, and monitoring for accountability are all crucial institutional capacities to consider strengthening. Technical assistance to local governments, as well as local offices of national institutions, can be an essential tool to improve the quality and integrity of public administration and resource stewardship.

While part of Objective 1 may lead to the uptake of whistleblowing among the general public, Objectives 2 and 3 approach that same goal for public servants, who face very different incentives, norms, and outcomes of engaging in whistleblowing. Objective 2 activities should target norms, attitudes, and practices around accountability and anti-corruption, which can be a driver of change or foundational barrier.

Individuals with attitudes that corruption is a problem may still perpetuate it through practices, often in conformance with a wider norm. Strategies to engage here, test what works with which places and actors, and adapt programming accordingly. Approaches should be tuned to the types of public officials they are targeting— drivers at the local government level differ greatly from the education sector, infrastructure, or elected office, for example.

Objective 3: Improved key systems, practices, standards, and norms of target national anti-corruption and accountability institutions.

Effective, transparent institutions are at the heart of accountable government. Outcomes under this objective work to strengthen public institutions’ role in effective, transparent service delivery and appropriate use of public authority.

There are numerous potential institutional partners for efforts under Objective 3. Many national entities have mandates that are explicitly or closely tied to accountability and anti-corruption work, including the Inspectorate of Government (IG), the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), the Public Procurement and Disposal Authority (PPDA), Ministry of Local Government (MOLG), judicial institutions, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and Parliamentary Public Accounts Committees (PACs). A number of these have regional and local presence, with substantially varying capacity.

SSPA will support organizational development efforts for relevant institutions to build their ability to deliver on, and advocate on behalf of their mandates. Internal staff performance management, planning, budgeting, financial management, and monitoring for accountability are all crucial institutional capacities to consider strengthening. Effective leadership will be critical to improve accountability and reduce corruption in the public service. In some cases, organizational leaders are already champions of reform, and SSPA may explore ways to partner with and strengthen the reach of these individual champions. In others, leadership development is weak, and an opportunity for improvement.