Issue Date: August 31, 2018, Friday, Philippine Standard Time Deadline for Question: September 10, 2018, Monday, Philippine Standard Time Closing Date: October 15, 2018, Monday, Philippine Standard Time Closing Time: 3:00PM Philippine Standard Time
Subject: Notice of Funding Opportunity Request for Application (RFA) 72049218RFA00011
Program Title: Regulatory Reform Support Program for National Development (RESPOND)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 98.001
Dear Prospective Applicants:
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking applications from eligible Philippine Organizations to implement the program entitled “Regulatory Reform Support Program for National Development (RESPOND),” as fully described in this Request for Applications (RFA). Eligibility for this award is restricted to local organizations; see Section C of this RFA for eligibility requirements.
Eligible organizations interested in submitting an application are encouraged to read each section of this RFA.
USAID requires applicants to register with the System for Award Management (SAM). The registration process may take many weeks to complete; therefore, applicants are encouraged to begin the process early. Please see Section C.1 for the required information.
Subject to the availability of funds, award(s) will be made to the responsible Applicant(s) whose application best meets the objectives of this funding opportunity and the selection criteria contained herein. USAID intends to award at least one (1) Cooperative Agreement pursuant to this RFA. USAID reserves the right to fund any or none of the applications submitted.
Eligible organizations may submit only one (1) application in response to this RFA.
Please be aware that this RFA is non-traditional and contains three merit review phases:
Phase 1: Applicants will submit an Initial Application, which will include a limited page concept paper. Based on USAID's evaluation of the Initial Applications, only the top applicants will be invited to participate in Phase 2.
Phase 2: Selected applicants from Phase 1 will be invited to participate in oral presentations of their proposed technical approach in Manila, Philippines.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 1 of 42
Phase 3: One applicant whose application best meets the objectives of this funding opportunity based on the selection criteria contained herein will be selected to co-develop with USAID/Philippines a program description. USAID will review the final program description and accompanying cost application and grade it as acceptable or not acceptable.
For the purposes of this RFA, the term “Grant” is synonymous with “Cooperative Agreement,” “Grantee” is synonymous with “Recipient,” and “Grant Officer” is synonymous with “Agreement Officer". Eligible organizations interested in submitting an application are encouraged to read this funding opportunity thoroughly to understand the type of program sought, application submission requirements and evaluation process.
To be eligible for award, the Applicant must provide all information required in this RFA and meet eligibility standards in Section C of this RFA. This funding opportunity is posted on www.grants.gov, and may be amended. Potential applicants should regularly check the website to ensure they have the latest information pertaining to this RFA. Applicants will need to have available or download Adobe Acrobat to their computers in order to view and save the Adobe forms properly. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that the RFA has been received from the internet in its entirety, and USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from the transmission or conversion process. If you have difficulty registering on www.grants.gov or accessing the RFA, please contact the Grants.Gov Helpdesk at 1-800- 518-4726 or via email at [email protected].
Please send any questions to point/s of contact identified in Section D. The closing date for questions is shown above. Responses to questions received on or before the deadline will be furnished to all potential applicants through an amendment to this RFA posted to Grants.gov. Applicants are encouraged to check Grants.Gov website periodically to check for any amendment to the RFA.
Issuance of this RFA does not constitute an award commitment on the part of USAID nor does it commit USAID to pay for any cost incurred in the preparation or submission of comments/suggestions or an application. Applications are submitted at the risk of the Applicant. All preparation and submission costs are at the Applicant's expense.
Thank you for your interest in the programs of USAID/Philippines.
Sincerely,
Nathan Hilgendorf Agreement Officer
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 2 of 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ...... 4
SECTION B: FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION ...... 20
SECTION C: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION ...... 22
SECTION D: APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION ...... 24
SECTION E: APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION ...... 29
SECTION F: FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION ...... 33
SECTION G: FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACT(S) ...... 41
SECTION H: OTHER INFORMATION ...... 42
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 3 of 42
SECTION A: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
USAID/Philippines is seeking grant applications from eligible local organizations for an activity aimed at supporting government reform initiatives that improve competitiveness, boost trade and investment, and promote inclusive economic growth. This plan is a five-year cooperative agreement entitled, “Regulatory Reform Support Program for National Development” (RESPOND) which seeks improvements in regulatory quality that will lead to enhanced competitiveness, which in turn, contributes to higher levels of investment and trade.
A.2 AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
The authorizing legislation for this anticipated cooperative agreement is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the award will be subject to 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 700 and 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The Standard Provisions for Non-U.S. Non-Governmental Recipients will apply.
For purposes of this RFA, the words “activity”, “program”, or “project” are used interchangeably to refer to RESPOND.
A.3 PURPOSE
This activity is an integral part of the USAID/Philippines project “Economic Growth, Democracy and Governance with Equity (EGDGE)” which seeks to assist the Philippines to “strengthen their ability to become more self-reliant, improve democratic practices, and become a stable, middle-income country by 2040”. Specifically, it supports the EGDGE Project’s goal of making economic development more inclusive through better domestic resource mobilization and public financial management and improving the enabling environment for greater trade and investment.
More broadly, this activity contributes to the USAID/Philippines’ Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2012-2018’s goal of a “more stable, prosperous, well-governed nation”. Specifically, this project supports Development Objective (DO) 1, Broad-Based and Inclusive Growth Accelerated and Sustained, and Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1, Economic Competitiveness Enhanced. This project is expected to extend beyond the current CDCS and will be developed in line with USAID’s strategy. This activity supports the U.S. government’s Indo-Pacific strategy which aims to promote “a free and open Indo-Pacific in which independent nations with diverse cultures and different aspirations can prosper side-by-side in freedom and in peace.” DELIVER supports USAID’s overall focus on self-reliance, and the Indo-Pacific Strategy in particular, by assisting to incentivize reforms, strengthen in-country capacity, remove barriers to private investment, and mobilize domestic resources, in support of open trade and investment environments, transparency, and improved infrastructure. 1
1 The activity also supports the Infrastructure Transaction and Assistance Network (ITAN), a whole-of-government U.S. effort to support productive infrastructure investment in partner countries through technical assistance in project evaluation and assessment, development financing, and access to
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 4 of 42
This activity is informed by a number of analytical studies and broad-based multi-stakeholder consultations that will support the new CDCS. USAID’s recent Jobs Diagnostics, for example, identified the binding constraints to inclusive growth. If these constraints are addressed, the higher growth potential for the economy will be fulfilled and will promote more inclusive development.
This activity supports the objectives of the Philippine-U.S. Partnership for Growth2 and builds on its past activities. Since the PFG began in 2011, there have been a number of significant reform achievements that enable the Philippines to progress towards sustained growth. PFG activities facilitated improvements in the country’s competitive position, lowered transaction costs, improved fiscal performance and promoted greater competition. Specifically, this activity will build on the work done by the Trade-Related Assistance for Development (TRADE), the Advancing Philippine Competitiveness (COMPETE), and the Facilitating Public Investment (FPI) activities. Where feasible, this activity will also build on the work of USAID’s Cities Development Initiative (CDI) that seeks to develop growth hubs outside of Metro Manila and Cebu3.
The activity will support the zero-to-ten point plus economic agenda of the Duterte administration encapsulated in the 2017-2022 Philippine Development Plan (PDP). The project will also assist the Philippine government in attaining the goals and objectives of its AmBisyon Natin 2040, a development roadmap. By 2040, the aim is to increase per capita income by three-fold and eradicate poverty by ensuring broad-based and inclusive growth.
A.4 BACKGROUND
The Philippines has been widely recognized for its robust economic performance in recent years, averaging more than 6 percent GDP growth from 2010 to 2017. In the next two years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts the country to be the fastest growing economy in Southeast Asia, and second in the world, next to India4. While the Philippines’ economic performance has been impressive, this growth has not been inclusive. Six years of consistent GDP growth has had a positive impact on poverty, with rates falling from 25.2 percent in 2012 to 21.6 percent in 2015, but this reduction has been slow, especially when compared to the performance of its ASEAN neighbors.
More significantly, high levels of inequality have persisted as the Gini coefficient, the official measure of income inequality, has declined only minimally (e.g. from 0.47 in 2012 to 0.44 in 2015), and has consistently been the highest in the region. Over 20 million Filipinos fall below the poverty line, particularly in the rural sector where the poverty incidence of 30 percent is above the national average (close to 40 percent of farmers and fisher folk are considered poor). Poverty is further exacerbated by the scarcity of opportunities for quality jobs that pay decent wages. While unemployment is relatively low, underemployment has consistently been high and was registered at 16 percent in 2017.
advisory and legal services for contract negotiations. See https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jul-30-2018-administrator-mark- green-remarks-indo-pacific-business-forum and https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/07/284829.htm 2 The Partnership for Growth (PFG) was an inter-agency effort under a Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, which advances economic growth in countries committed to good governance. PFG provided USG assistance and non-assistance resources over five years to assist the Philippines overcome binding constraints to investment expansion for increased employment and higher incomes focusing on weak governance and narrow fiscal space. 3 USAID’s CDI program currently works in Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, Iloilo, Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, and Zamboanga cities. 4 IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2018
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 5 of 42
Furthermore, in its latest economic update for the Philippines, the World Bank cited that the country’s share of the population with per capita income above the global middle-income line of US$ 15 per day was only 9.2 percent in 2015, lower than in Malaysia (65.7 percent), Thailand (35.4 percent) and China (19.4 percent). This makes the Philippines still farther away from its goal of becoming a middle-class society5.
Investment generation is crucial to create employment, boost incomes, and reduce poverty. However, the Philippines has been slow in attracting and mobilizing investment. While foreign direct investment (FDI) has improved from $1 billion in 2010 to a record $10 billion in 2017, the Philippines still lags behind its ASEAN neighbors in competing for foreign capital. In 2015, the Philippines’s net FDI only totaled $5.6 billion, compared to Indonesia ($16.6 billion), Vietnam ($11.8 billion), Malaysia ($11.3 billion) and Thailand ($8.0 billion)6. Overall, investment as a proportion of GDP, has only averaged around 20 percent in the last 20 years, though it has improved close to 30 percent in 2016 and 2017. Moreover, to sustain its current growth trajectory and accelerate economic expansion, the country needs to shift from a consumption-led growth to investment-driven growth.
Many factors inhibit the increase of trade and investment in the country. At its root, the Philippines is characterized by a continuing lack of competitiveness7. Competitiveness is key for the country to attract foreign direct investment and to perform well in the global trading environment. From improving its rankings in WEF’s Competitiveness Index from the bottom half in 2010 and 2011 (85 out of 139 and 75 out of 142 countries) to 47 in 2015, the Philippines has slipped back to 57 and 56, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.
A.5 THEORY OF CHANGE
The purpose of this activity is to make the environment for trade and investment more open and competitive with an emphasis on improving regulatory quality.
The theory of change here is that regulatory reform and improvements in regulatory quality will lead to increased government capacity to implement policies that improve competitiveness, which in turn, contributes to greater investment and trade and hence job and income generation and overall inclusive economic growth, setting the Philippines further along the path of self-reliance.
There is strong empirical evidence showing the positive relationship between regulatory quality and economic growth. Research showed a robust link between regulation indices and economic growth8. The literature also shows that economies with excessive business and labor regulations do not stimulate investment. The study by Djankov et al. (2006) on the impact of business regulations on growth in 135 countries during 1993- 2002 found that business regulations index and growth are consistently and positively correlated and that countries with less burdensome business regulations grow faster9. Studies also stress the importance of the business environment in stimulating incentives for competition and innovation. Since 2004, the World Bank’s Doing
5 Philippine Economic Update, April 2018, World Bank 6 https://www.aseanstats.org/publication/asean-foreign-direct-invesment-fdi/ 7 The World Economic Forum (WEF) defines competitiveness as the “set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of an economy, which in turn sets the level of prosperity that the economy can achieve. The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018. 8 See B. Messaoud and Z. Teheni (2014) “Business regulations and economic growth: What can be explained?” International Strategic Management Review Vol. 2; J. Haidar (2012) “The impact of business regulatory reforms on economic growth” Journal of Japanese and International Economies Vol. 26; M. Hanusch (2011) The Doing Business Indicators, Economic Growth and Regulatory Reform (University of Oxford). 9 S. Djankov, C McLiesh and R. Ramalhom. 2006. “Regulation and Economic Growth”. Economic Letters. See also N. Crafts. (2006). “Regulation and Productivity Performance” Oxford Review of Economic Policy Vol. 22 Issue. 2.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 6 of 42
Business annual reports stressed the connection between regulations (covering starting a business, hiring and firing of workers, enforcing a contract, getting credit and closing a business) and levels of economic growth. The reports have generally observed that heavier regulation results in negative outcomes – that is, excessive regulation leads to more unemployment, increased corruption, less productivity, lower investment and lower quality goods and services10.
Rules and regulations are crucial in setting the environment for private enterprise to operate and flourish and in creating opportunities for economic growth. Regulations need to be coherent and consistent without unduly being burdensome or costly for businesses. Ineffective or poorly designed regulation can negatively impact private enterprise development and deter investment and job generation. Of the myriad of factors affecting the country’s competitiveness, onerous, inconsistent, and poorly designed and implemented regulations create a significant disincentive to private enterprise development, thus deterring investment and job generation. Poor regulations also adversely affect production dynamics and resource allocation decisions. New entrants, small businesses and entrepreneurs bear the brunt of heavy and inefficient regulations. The prevalence of restrictive regulations and heavy administrative requirements imposes a burden on entrepreneurs and small firms that may not have the resources or influence to change or cope with these rules. Regulatory reforms can create an environment that supports the emergence and development of private enterprise that is efficient and inclusive.
According to the World Bank’s Regulatory Quality Index11, the Philippines rates relatively weaker compared to Malaysia and Thailand (see table). The Philippines ranked 117 (out of 138 countries) in the burden of government regulation indicator12 compared to Malaysia (6), Indonesia (37), Thailand (61), and Vietnam (88), according to the World Economic Forum’s 2016-2017 Global Competitiveness Report.
Regulatory Quality Index, 2016
Country Score Singapore 2.18 Malaysia 0.71 Thailand 0.17 Philippines 0.00 Indonesia - 0.12 Vietnam - 0.45 Source: World Bank Note: Above zero is strong, below zero is weak
A.6 OBJECTIVES
To foster an open and competitive environment for greater trade and investment, this activity will pursue interventions that (1) enhance market competition, and (2) strengthen regulatory capacity and governance. In what manner can reforms take place to enhance competition and improve regulatory quality? To advance
10 World Bank. 2004. Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation. (Oxford University Press). 11 The Index of Regulatory Quality captures perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. (World Bank, 2016) 12 This is based on an Executive Opinion Survey conducted by WEF with the question: “In your country, how burdensome is it for companies to comply with public administration’s requirements (e.g., permits, regulations, reporting)?
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 7 of 42 market competition, this activity will support reforms that (1a) reduce barriers to entry, and (1b) reduce regulatory burdens and transactions costs for business. To strengthen the capacity of public officials to develop transparent regulations, this activity will (2a) strengthen regulatory oversight, and (2b) strengthen transparent and accountability mechanisms. As a cross-cutting objective, the activity will also seek to expand citizen engagement and the participation of civil society organizations to advocate for fair and open regulation and a better business environment.
Environment for trade and investment is made more open and competitive
Citizen engagement Regulatory capacity Market competition and advocacy and governance enhanced strengthened strengthened
Transparency and Regulatory burden Barriers to market Regulatory oversight accountability and transaction entry reduced strengthened mechanisms costs reduced strengthened
Objective 1: Market competition enhanced
The Philippines’ economic progress is due in part to the cumulative result of reforms undertaken since the late 1980s. Deregulation, privatization and the breaking up of long-standing monopolies in air transport, telecommunications, banking, energy and other sectors have contributed to the remarkable growth trend in recent years. The Philippine Competition Act passed in 2014 seeks to promote a “more competitive market where multiple buyers and sellers drive market prices lower, consumers enjoy a wider range of choices, and efficiency and innovation are encouraged.” The law also established a competition authority mandated to promote and maintain market competition, penalize anti-competitive behavior, and implement a national competition policy.
However, competition is still restricted in many sectors of the economy. Based on the World Bank’s Product Market Regulation (PMR), Philippine markets exhibit higher levels of competition restrictiveness than comparator countries. The World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks the Philippines at the bottom 20 for market competition, specifically ranking 119th (out of 138 countries) in the ‘extent of market dominance’ and 125th in the effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy. According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) FDI Regulatory Index, the Philippines has more statutory restrictions on foreign
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 8 of 42 investment than any of the larger ASEAN countries13. Except for manufacturing and financial services, statutory restrictions are relatively high across many sectors of the economy, especially agro-fisheries, business services, media, telecommunications and transport. Completing the reform process and consolidating existing reforms will help to sustain the improved performance of the Philippine economy in the years ahead. This can be undertaken through (1) easing barriers to market entry, and (2) reducing regulatory burdens and transaction costs to businesses.
Objective 1a: Barriers to market entry reduced
High barriers to entry and other restrictive regulatory measures are a major factor for the lack of competitiveness and low levels of trade and investment in the Philippines. New entrants, both foreign and domestic firms, are prevented from entering the market for goods and services as firms are constrained by rules and regulations that limit entry and restrict operations. There are constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership with outright prohibitions for such sectors as mass media and advertising and a cap on a number of other industries14. Participation of foreign entities in economic and commercial activities in the Philippines is regulated under Republic Act No. 7042, otherwise known as the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (FIA). The FIA requires the publication of the Foreign Investment Negative List (FINL) – which outlines economic activities where foreign equity and participation are either prohibited or limited to a specific percentage15 – every two years. Even as the Philippine President issued a memorandum order in November 2017, the next FINL iteration has not yet been issued16.The 82-year-old Public Service Act regards a whole range of public services as “natural monopolies” and restricts foreign ownership and competition17.
The existing regulatory framework contributes to market concentration, discourages competition, and stifles innovation. The relative absence of foreign investors in infrastructure development partly stem from the 40 percent foreign equity limit and the restrictions on the access of foreign-owned firms to public procurement. Under the Flag Law, government favors domestic firms for government purchases and contracts18. Minimum capital requirements and other restrictions exist in the retail sector, power and financial services.19
13 See OECD Investment Policy Review: Philippines 2016 14 The Philippines limits foreign ownership to 40 percent in the following industries: manufacturing of explosives, firearms, military hardware, and massage clinics. Other areas that carry varying foreign ownership ceilings include: private radio communications networks (20 percent); private employee recruitment firms (25 percent); contracts for the construction and repair of locally funded public works (25 percent); advertising agencies (30 percent); natural resource exploration, development, and utilization (40 percent, with exceptions); educational institutions (40 percent); operation and management of public utilities (40 percent); operation of commercial deep sea fishing vessels (40 percent); ownership of private lands (40 percent); and rice and corn processing (40 percent, with some exceptions). 15 The FINL bans foreign ownership in the following investment activities: mass media (except recording); small-scale mining; private security; marine resources, including the small-scale use of natural resources in rivers, lakes, and lagoons; and the manufacture of firecrackers and pyrotechnic devices. 16 President Duterte issued Memorandum Order No. 16 on November 22, 2017, directing the National Economic and Development Authority and member agencies to “take immediate steps to lift or ease existing restrictions on foreign participation” in certain investment areas, including certain professional services, construction, retail trade enterprises, and domestic market enterprises. 17 There are legislative proposals to amend the Public Service Act and provide a clearer statutory definition of a public utility that will, in effect, open up certain utilities to 100 percent foreign capitalization. 18 There are limits to foreign participation in Philippine government procurement contracts (40 percent for supply of goods and commodities); construction of locally funded public works (25 percent with some exceptions); operations of Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) projects in public utilities (40 percent); 19 Retail trade enterprises with capital of less than US$2.5 million, or less than US$250,000 for retailers of luxury goods, are reserved for filipinos. Foreign investors are prohibited from owning stock in lending, financing, or investment companies unless the investor’s home country affords the same reciprocal rights to Filipino investors. While foreign banks are allowed to establish branches or own up to 100 percent of the voting stock, the law stipulates that a minimum 60 percent of the total assets of the Philippine banking system should, at all times, remain controlled by majority Philippine-owned banks. Foreign companies seeking to invest in the renewable energy business face a 40 percent ownership restriction. Competition in the electricity market depends on the effective operation of an independent market operator that will coordinate the operation of the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM).
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 9 of 42
Additionally, the preference for locals of the practice of certain professions limits the ability to firms to access the best talents and leads to higher labor costs20.
These regulations have inadvertently created monopolies and duopolies to exist in strategic sectors and public utilities including telecommunications, power distribution, media, shipping, air and seaports, and cement. In other words, the current regulatory framework perpetuates the market power of incumbents and, generally, results in market failure. The restrictive nature of the regulatory framework also prevents the entry of new and innovative technologies especially in transport, power and telecommunications, which in turn, hampers the country’s growth prospects. As a result of these economic barriers, Filipinos and residents in the country face limited choices, and thus, have to endure expensive and poor quality economic and consumer services. Local enterprises face higher utility, input and logistics costs that erode their productivity and competitiveness. Similarly, the restriction on the practice of professions in the domestic market limits professional improvement and development, hinders access to expertise and technology, and limits economic opportunity for Filipinos.
What reforms are needed to reduce barriers to entry and promote more competition? This activity will support interventions that create the enabling legal and policy framework that fosters more market openness and competition. A suite of technical assistance activities including technical analysis and studies that are consistent with international standards and good practice, as well as legal and policy advisory services, can be delivered here. Advocacy, engagement and outreach activities that support realization of these policy reforms and contribute to public education and awareness of policy reform issues will also be supported.
Objective 1b: Regulatory burdens and transaction costs reduced
In spite of improvements over time, the Philippines remains a difficult place to do business. In the 2018 WEF Report, the country ranked second worst (136 out of 137) in the number of procedures to start a business, while falling at 115 for ‘time to start a business.’ The Philippines is among the bottom 15 percent of countries with the lowest rate of newly registered firms. The country ranked 115th in the ease of paying taxes (Malaysia was 61st while Thailand was 109th) and ranked 95th in the costs and procedures involved in importing and exporting (Thailand was 56th, Malaysia was 60th). The WEF ranks the country at 125 out of 137 in terms of burden of customs procedures while the World Bank’s Trading Across Borders ranks the Philippines in the bottom half (99 out of 190 countries), compared to Thailand (57), Malaysia (61), and Vietnam (94). In the World Bank’s (Trade) Logistics Performance Index (LPI), the country has the lowest score (seventh lowest) in customs clearance processes among ASEAN countries. The tax burden in the Philippines is also fairly high, having the highest corporate income tax (CIT) rate in the region at 30%21.
The multiplicity of regulations also leads to high compliance costs that make the country less competitive and less attractive for investment. For instance, current laws on land ownership have made it difficult for farmers to obtain loans from banks or make land freely tradeable. Labor market policies also favor capital-intensive over labor-intensive industries and support short-term or temporary over longer-term and permanent employment contracts thereby hindering productive job creation.
20 Only three professions are supposedly reserved for Filipino professionals, namely: Radiologic and X-ray technology, Criminology, and Law. However, all other professions are conditionally opened to foreign individuals. Under the reciprocity provision, foreigners would be given the opportunity to practice their profession in the Philippines, if their countries also offer the same privilege to Filipinos. In practice, however, language exams, onerous registration processes, and other barriers prevent foreigners from entry. 21 While CIT continuously grew with the economy during the period, from 3.5 to 4.2 of GDP, growth has been very slow and CIT productivity of the country remains one of the lowest in the region at 12%, compared to the regional average of 18%, and significantly lower than Thailand (315), Vietnam (29%) and Malaysia (27%).
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 10 of 42
Businesses have to bear unnecessary regulatory burdens22 such as duplication of requirements in securing licenses and permits that have an impact in terms of cost, time and complexity arising from overregulation. Government requirements are often redundant and open to different interpretations. There is a general lack of a formal and systematic procedure for disseminating information regarding rules and regulations. Assessments of fees are non-standardized and collected by multiple agencies of government, both at the national and local levels. Regulations are often not adaptive to technological change, market shifts, or consumer needs. Innovative businesses find that they have to adjust their business models to adapt to outdated rules.
More importantly, overregulation creates the incentive for private firms to lobby for exemptions or privileges from state authorities. These firms try to influence the bureaucracy to obtain preferential loans, subsidies, tariff protection and other government granter privileges. Overregulation encourages rent-seeking behavior among firms which ultimately undermines competition, reduces welfare, and hampers economic growth23. For example, the practice of “guaranteed rate of return” or other forms of cross-subsidies allows the private firm to obtain profit while the government absorbs all the risks of an investment. The government then passes the cost to the consumer either through higher rates or more taxes.
This activity supports the elimination of national and local regulations that are redundant, burdensome, out- of-date or unnecessary, to reduce the cost of doing business in the country. Measures to simplify processes and facilitate compliance should also be supported. Recently, the government introduced Republic Act 11032, also known as the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery law, which aims to shorten the number of days in processing permits and licenses for all business-related transactions in the Philippines. In 2016, the government initiated Project Repeal to eliminate laws that placed a heavy regulatory burden on companies. Interventions that will support the effective implementation of the recently passed reform measures are critical to ensure that the activity contributes to positive changes in government regulations.
What measures are needed to reduce regulatory burdens and transaction costs? One-stop portals for business registration, border and customs requirements, among others, have been introduced to cut down the time and steps of compliance. The use of technology to modernize customer service and pre- and post-transaction services should be expanded. The use of scorecards or benchmarks can be used not only to improve performance but also to increase transparency and accountability. There are also legislative bills seeking to remove limits on the disposal of agricultural land and the lowering of corporate taxes. Advancing these policy reforms through a good mix of interventions will be pursued. Similar to the preceding section, activities in this area will benefit from regulatory impact analysis exercises.
Objective 2: Regulatory capacity and governance strengthened
The regulation of the economy is entrusted to several agencies across the government, each concerned with a particular industrial sector. These entities have authorities to issue permits and grant licenses, award
22 Regulatory burden refers to the risk that normal business operations become more costly due to the regulatory environment. This includes regulatory compliance and bureaucratic inefficiency and/or opacity. 23 Rent seeking refers to non-market extraction of surplus or profit generated through licenses, quotas, subsidies, protection and other government granted privileges. It refers to an entity’s use of organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 11 of 42 franchises, set rates, provide incentives, impose sanctions, and promote competition in their respective sectors. Regulatory entities can control, incentivize, enable and/or facilitate the development of private enterprise in the country. Rules implemented by these regulatory agencies impact investment, production, and consumption behavior of private individuals and firms.
However, poor regulatory environments can hamper competitiveness and erode business confidence in public institutions and processes. In the 2016 Executive Opinion Survey conducted by the World Economic Forum, inefficient government bureaucracy was the top most concern of businesses in the Philippines (corruption placed third). Regulatory capture24, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiencies can be very costly and undermine economic growth. This activity seeks to (1) strengthen regulatory oversight and (2) strengthen transparency and accountability mechanisms.
Objective 2a: Regulatory oversight strengthened
Conflicting mandates of certain regulatory agencies weakens competition, give rise to inefficiencies, raise business costs, and deter investment. A number of government agencies have inherent weaknesses in their mandates such that their regulatory functions are often in conflict with their mandates to generate revenue and provide competing services. As a result, these public sector entities not only regulate themselves and but also crowd out the private sector in the delivery of goods and services. The unintended outcomes of these regulatory conflicts are higher user fees, poor quality services, and, often, the underdevelopment of the sector.
For instance, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), a government-owned and controlled corporation, acts as developer, operator, maintainer and regulator of ports in the country25. The PPA, as an operator of ports, has little incentive to promote competition and uses its regulatory powers to protect its own ports vis-à-vis competitors. The agency controls the issuance of permits to construct and operate ports and therefore can limit the entry of new players and insulate its ports from competition. PPA has an economic incentive to increase cargo handling rates from which it earns revenue 26. Due to the fact that PPA regulates itself, there have been few attempts to introduce better services and efficiencies in port services. PPA also designates only one cargo handling company in every port thereby limiting competition. These regulations increase inter-island shipping and overall logistics as well lower the quality of port services.
Similarly, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) has conflicting mandates as regulator, developer, and operator of airports in the country27. It is responsible for the promotion, development and regulation of the technical, operational, safety, and security functions of civil aviation. Like PPA, CAAP has no fiscal autonomy and funds its operating expenses from landing rights and other airport fees. CAAP regulates and operates air traffic and air navigation services and aerodromes. Other than the Authority itself, there is no independent agency that conducts investigations of air accidents and lapses in air transport security. Failure to meet global air standards such as those set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), including
24 Regulatory capture is defined as “meant behaviors, active and passive, by responsible authorities, which behavior acts to protect the same illegal, unethical, immoral or anti-public interest practices that those authorities are charged of policing” (McMahon, 2002). 25 More than half of the ports in the country are under the purview of the PPA. Other ports are either under the jurisdiction of independent port authorities or are municipal ports operated by local governments. 26 PPA gets its operating expenses from a share of the fees it collects from wharfage, berthing/usage fees and cargo handling. PPA also sets the port dues that private ports can charge for handling non-own cargo and collects 50% of these dues in taxes. By setting low port charges in these private ports (among the lowest in the region), it discourages investment by the private sector in ports. 27 CAAP operates and maintains 80 out of 86 airports nationwide and performs oversight functions to the six airports manages by separate authorities.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 12 of 42 aviation safety and security, has resulted in the blacklisting of Philippine carriers and has limited in-bound flights of foreign carriers, thus harming the country’s tourism industry28.
Similar conflicts-of-interest exist in other government agencies, such as the National Food Authority (NFA), which manages and regulates rice importation, and the Philippine Gaming Corporation, which operates and governs casinos nationwide. Regulatory conflicts also happen at the sub-national level where one governance function struggles with another regulation. For instance, problems of traffic congestion in various localities in the country is often caused by the failure of local government units to limit the number of franchises (issued to local transport providers), which is a major local revenue source.
The adverse impacts of such regulatory conflicts on the local economy and on the governance of various sectors necessitate attention. One remedy could be to amend the charters of these government agencies to separate regulation from operations. Currently, there are a number of reforms that seek to decouple these functions including a legislative proposal to create independent authorities to strengthen competition in these sectors. The National Logistics Master Plan of the Department of Trade and Industry was crafted to address the conflicting mandates of the PPA and the CAAP. The Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG) also supports the “functional delinking” of these regulatory agencies.
How should conflicts-of-interest be eliminated and regulatory oversight strengthened? Expert technical studies may be undertaken to propose policy and institutional reforms aimed at reducing regulatory conflicts and at the same time improving regulatory coherence. Competition and contestability should be introduced in the operations of these essential services to foster efficiency, improve service delivery and lower prices. When and where possible, private sector should be allowed to lease or own operations leaving government to regulate, ensure standards compliance and safeguard consumer welfare. Privatization initiatives may be explored. Greater transparency in rate setting and awarding of contracts should also be introduced. To advance these reforms and ensure broad-based support, public outreach and communication activities, as well as coalition- building initiatives, especially with the private sector, will also be supported.
Objective 2b: Transparency and accountability mechanisms strengthened
Consumers often complain about the lack of universal access, high rates, and service disruptions in many regulated industries. Industry players are often accused of staging production shortages which in turn justify price hikes. There are perceptions that the regulator and the regulated industry collude at the expense of consumer welfare. The public expects government regulators to set and enforce minimum standards and protect consumer interest. The public wants assurances about the quality and cost of the goods and services that they receive. Confidence in commercial transactions and other contracts depend on the effectiveness of regulators.
For one, regulatory agencies are often constrained in their ability to regulate because of asymmetries of information between the government and the industry they oversee. Government regulators may lack expertise and knowledge of the intricacies of the industry that they are expected to regulate. Their ability to carry out rigorous technical analysis and study the impact of regulations is largely inadequate. In the case of highly technical sectors like energy, transport or telecommunications, for instance, agencies tend to depend heavily on information and assessments from the regulated industry or industry insiders to inform their
28 The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) downgraded the Philippines in 2008 for CAAP’s failure to meet ICAO standards. In 2010, the European Union also imposed a ban on Philippine air carriers. Both bans have since been lifted.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 13 of 42 decision making. Consequently, regulatory decisions that are developed in a context of limited resources tend to favor the producers over consumers and erode regulatory independence. In deciding on rate hikes, for example, there is the perception that regulatory decisions overly favor industry players to the detriment of the consuming public. Without updated information about the latest developments in the industry, effective monitoring and enforcement of rules also becomes a challenge. Information asymmetry gives undue power to dominant firms and can make regulatory entities prone to capture.
The lack of transparency also affects public confidence in regulatory decisions. Transparency creates credibility for regulatory decisions and assures investors that seek predictability and stability of rules. Stakeholders, particularly consumers, should be regularly consulted and allowed to participate in decision-making. The publication of regulatory documents, such as entry requirements, rate setting parameters and price adjustment formulas can promote greater understanding and acceptance of the policy outcomes. Open access to records of conference hearings and proceedings, reports, and studies may reduce uncertainty and promote predictability. Regulatory entities face the challenge of managing demand, mounting education campaigns, and organizing consultations that allow them to effectively engage the public.
Regulatory entities are confronted with many potential entry points for undue influence whether by the regulated industry, government, politicians or some special interest group. These entities face powerful lobbies opposing, supporting or prioritizing a particular decision. Safeguards should be put in place to protect the independence and autonomy of regulators from undue political influence and maintain regulatory neutrality. One solution could be introducing fiscal autonomy and adopting fixed tenures for regulators as a means to guaranteeing regulatory independence. Designing criteria for selecting and appointing regulators can reduce conflicts-of-interest and improve the technical qualifications of the appointees. Designing appropriate mechanisms for engaging diverse stakeholders can also insulate regulators from undue influence.
What measures are needed to improve transparency and accountability and strengthen regulatory independence? Reforms are needed to reduce opportunities for capture and guarantee regulatory neutrality and independence. This activity will support improvements in regulatory governance by introducing and strengthening transparent processes and transactions and promoting effective public education and communication programs. This activity will also seek to improve technical capacity and advance measures to enhance regulatory independence. Regulatory impact analysis and other cost-benefit studies may inform the right regulatory decisions and broaden public support for these measures.
CROSS-CUTTING OBJECTIVE: CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY STRENGTHENED
As a cross-cutting measure, this activity will support interventions that expand public participation and engagement in regulatory decision-making. Support for civil society advocacy is an essential element of the effort to bring about and sustain all of the reforms envisioned in this project. Citizen involvement and participation in such areas as rule formulation, budget priorities and judicial determinations should be promoted. Public engagement and transparency enhances the legitimacy of regulatory decisions and improve organizational performance. This ensures that these regulatory agencies orient their programs to respond to community needs, build public support and promote inclusiveness. Government policies and programs can have a more positive impact on society with greater involvement of citizens and civil society organizations in the decision-making process. Mechanisms for public consultations and dialogues should be strengthened and regulatory reviews conducted on a regular basis. How can citizen engagement and participation in regulatory decision-making be enhanced? This activity can facilitate constructive information sharing that can bring about better regulatory decisions. Open government strategies and programs, including public portals and data
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 14 of 42 access, should be strengthened. Use of digital methods and social media platforms can also be used to promote greater public engagement and transparency.
A.7 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS
Intermediate result 1a: Barriers to entry reduced ● Legal restrictions on equity ownership eased ● Negative list for foreign investment narrowed ● Abuse of market dominance effectively restrained ● Increased market competition in strategic sectors currently under monopolies or duopolies
Intermediate result 1b: Regulatory burdens and transaction costs reduced ● Steps, time and cost of compliance reduced ● Outdated, conflicting and/or redundant regulations eliminated ● Corporate tax reduced in line with regional average
Intermediate result 2a: Regulatory oversight strengthened ● Regulatory charters amended creating independent, separate regulatory authorities ● Privatization of non-core services expanded
Intermediate result 2b: Transparency and accountability mechanisms strengthened ● Independent regulatory oversight strengthened ● Public participation in regulatory decision-making expanded ● In-house agency technical capacity improved
Cross-cutting Objective: Citizen engagement and advocacy strengthened: ● Multi-stakeholder coalitions established and effectively advocating for regulatory policy reforms
A.8 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The project will develop targets that correspond to the following illustrative indicators:
● Change in market concentration levels in key sectors ● Percent change in sectors with foreign equity restrictions ● Number of key reforms passed in comparison with a list of recommended or promoted reforms ● Number of targeted agencies with improved regulatory capacity and independence ● Proportion of citizens who believe they have adequate information on regulatory issues and on key aspects of government proceedings/activities. ● Change in public perceptions of efficiency in the delivery or provision of selected government services (as reported in opinion polls) ● Change in perception of businesses or firms attempting to do business with the state. ● Time and cost to customers of getting a license(s) from a selected govt. regulatory or licensing agency ● Number of mechanisms for external regulatory oversight supported by USG assistance ● Number of civil society organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 15 of 42
● Number of USG-assisted civil society organizations (CSOs) that participate in legislative proceedings and/or engage in advocacy with national legislature and its committees
It is expected that the recipient will develop an Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) that will capture these indicators. The activity will be expected to contribute to achieving these targets and provide data that will be reported in the annual PPR. Indicators will also be reviewed annually to ensure alignment and contribution to the overall goals and objectives of the economic growth project.
A.9 APPROACH
Regulatory reforms can have nationwide benefit but faces some systemic challenges. Public institutions are inherently weak.29 Corruption is endemic, government agencies are susceptible to capture, and policies are often inconsistent and arbitrary. Regulatory reform measures are pursued by a political and bureaucratic system rife with special interest influence. Reform often encounters organized and well-funded opposition from politically-connected vested interests. Based on past experience, economic reform efforts are often protracted with beneficial outcomes unlikely to manifest themselves within the life of the program. Changing rules and policies, particularly through legislative action, although feasible, is likely to be lengthy and drawn out. Even when the policies are in place, they are not immune to judicial and other legal injunctions and even policy reversals. Effective implementation of these reform measures also demands strong bureaucratic capacity30 and sustained public support. However, the Philippine bureaucracy often lacks the administrative capacity, resources and technical expertise to effectively and efficiently carry out these programs. Effective implementation also requires meaningful cooperation and coordination among national government agencies and between the national and local levels.
As such, this Project requires the application of the Political Economy Analysis (PEA) methodology in order to achieve outcomes31. This approach requires a thorough understanding of the underlying political and power dynamics and relationships in any given industry or sector. This activity also seeks the use of context-driven adaptive programming that takes into account changes in the environment and unintended consequences of policy. Contextual learning should inform strategy and the design of interventions to advance reform. Additionally, this activity encourages innovative approaches that will help address long standing regulatory and policy reform issues and challenges.
In line with USAID’s mandate to promote self-reliance in countries where it works, the Project will leverage local actors’ expertise and experience, resources and innovative practices to address impediments to policy reform. The activity will work closely with champions within different branches and levels of government, the foreign and domestic private sector, academe, and civil society organizations in the different regions of the country. The Project may extend sub-grants to local CSOs, and academic institutions to carry out its work with the twin objectives of supporting the realization of Project objectives and enabling a critical mass of local actors to lead economic reform efforts, sustained over time even after direct funding assistance has ended. The Project will support national and local leaders who drive reform, develop broad stakeholder ownership of
29 E. de Dios and P. Hutchcroft. (2003). “Political Economy”. in A. Balisacan and H. Hill (eds.) The Philippine Economy: Development, Policies, and Challenges. F. Sta. Ana (2010). Philippine Institutions: Growth and Prosperity for All. Action for Economic Reforms. 30 Studies show a strong positive correlation between basic measures of state capacity and public good provision and development outcomes. See D. Acemoglu and J. Robinson. (2015). “Political Institutions and Comparative Development” NBER Reporter No. 2. 31 See USAID. 2016. “Applied Political Economy Analysis Field Guide” and USAID. 2016. “Lessons Learned Using USAID’s Applied Political Economy Analysis Framework”
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 16 of 42 the reform initiatives, and build reform constituencies and coalitions. Strong technical advice and knowledge transfer will help to convey best practices. The Offeror should also seek to collaborate with relevant USAID/Philippines activities currently being implemented to maximize reform outcomes.
USAID assistance will prioritize tactical deployment of its resources to support reforms that are politically feasible, technically and socially sound, and that can beneficially impact the majority of Filipinos. Governance reforms, including strengthening transparency and accountability measures, broadening public participation in economic decision-making, promoting the rule of law and the integrity of contracts, building up public administrative capacity and strengthening dispute settlement mechanisms should be pursued.
A.10 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PERIOD AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE
The place of performance for this activity will be in the Philippines and the envisioned length of the activity is five years with an estimated funding amount of $8-10 million for the life of the project. Offerors are invited to propose specific locations when activities fall outside the national scope or when interventions necessitate work at the sub-national level. These locations should complement USAID/Philippines’ Cities Development Initiative and/or programming in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao.
A.11 KEY PERSONNEL
USAID has determined that this activity will require the following key personnel positions:
A Chief of Party provides the overall management, vision, strategic direction and leadership of the project. The COP will provide the day-to-day management and coordination of project technical and administrative personnel and functions, including ensuring that appropriate technical and financial reporting requirements are met. He/she is in-charge of managing relationships with USAID, the Philippine government, other project partners, development partners, stakeholders and counterparts to ensure the quality and timeliness of project implementation. The proposed candidate should have the stature and reputation that will allow him access to and directly deal with high-level representatives from the Philippine government. He/she should have at least 10 years of relevant professional experience and has expertise in regulatory and policy reform work. The candidate should have previous experience in managing projects of similar size, scope and complexity. He/she has strong project management skills and has demonstrated competence in project financial management. He/she should have at least a Master’s degree in economics, public administration, political economy, public policy, or a related field. The candidate is able to demonstrate a good understanding of the challenges of regulatory reform and has had extensive experience in dealing with regulatory issues, particularly in similarly situated countries or jurisdictions. He/she must have excellent verbal and written skills in English and outstanding communication skills.
The COP will be assisted by an able Deputy Chief of Party who will be responsible for the overall administrative and operational aspects of the project. He/she has at least 10 years of related project management experience and has at least a Master’s degree in economics, management, public policy, public administration, development administration, political science or any related field. The DCOP is expected to manage relationships with key stakeholders, monitor the overall program budget and work plan, and ensure timely and cost-effective delivery of results as agreed upon. This includes working closely with technical implementation teams to ensure that resources are applied appropriately (e.g. human, financial and material) to undertake project activities, and working with the M&E staff to ensure project deliverables are monitored. The DCOP will organize sessions for development of performance management plan (PMP), annual work plan
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 17 of 42 submissions and will work collaboratively with other team members on project planning, implementation and reporting. He/she must have excellent verbal and written skills in English and outstanding communication skills.
Up to two additional key personnel may be proposed as part of the application.
A.12 GENDER
USAID/Philippines Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2013-2019 articulates the Mission’s commitment to gender equity and women empowerment. It recognizes that a more stable, prosperous and well-governed Philippines cannot be achieved without mainstreaming gender in all phases of the development process. Gender integration across all sectors covered by the strategy will be implemented. The Mission also seeks new and more effective ways to address gender concerns.
The integration of gender in the design of activities and interventions is critical in achieving the project goals. Gender integration within activity design will be a major building block for RESPOND. The major constraints as highlighted by a number of reports and analysis including the Philippines Joint Country Gender Assessment conducted by ADB in 2008 and the deficiencies, as shown within the Philippines context by the Gender Integration Framework, will form the basis through which gender considerations will be incorporated into specific interventions. The main findings in the analysis will inform design and interventions. In terms of advocacy, there will be a focus on accounting for women’s participation, changing mindsets towards women’s empowerment at community and village level, and greater representation of women in government line departments. Overall, the literature and research point to the need for holistic integrated approaches towards gender equity and women’s empowerment that cannot be addressed by stand-alone activities. RESPOND will adopt that same approach while designing specific activities and engaging with communities and various stakeholders.
A.13 MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING
Collaborative Learning and Adaptive Management will be key to the success of RESPOND, given its broad and cross-cutting approach. Adaptive management refers to making adjustments in intervention tactics or design based on iterative learning, thereby customizing the intervention. As such, establishing implementation decision points/milestones will be necessary during the life of the activity. While RESPOND may need to test an array of approaches, to ensure results, it will need to learn from its experiments and quickly hone in on those that are getting results, drop those that are not, and adapt approaches where indicated. Such an approach will also require a flexible monitoring system, across intervention components, private sector and public sector actors, and development partners. Applicants will not submit a full Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan at the Concept Note stage but should describe how their approach to MEL will inform the overall Technical Approach.
To facilitate data-driven learning and decision making around policy advocacy and strengthen the analytic capacity building of public institutions, USAID expects the proponent to propose a data collection and analysis plan. This activity will rely on data and evidence to inform its decisions and directs its interventions. The project will aim for data-driven decision-making and use a multidisciplinary approach to improve regulatory quality and governance. The plan should identify data requirements, metrics and illustrative data templates that will be used in the activity. The proponent is expected to set up a data analytics system to support project activities, identify milestones and achieve outcomes. This system should define data-gathering techniques,
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 18 of 42 analytical methodologies, predictive modeling and technology applications that will be utilized in this activity. Data quality, consistency, accuracy and completeness should be ensured. Data disaggregation by gender should be followed. Once data is analyzed, the system should also allow the visualization of results using infographics.
A.14 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES AND CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT
The Recipient will perform the work in accordance with the approved programmatic Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and its subsequent amendment(s), USAID’s environmental regulations at 22 CFR 216, and in accordance with application local environmental laws and regulations. Initial environmental assessment recommends all technical assistance and capacity building initiatives under RESPOND for Categorical Exclusion threshold decision. Activities under the Categorical Exclusion do not require an Environmental Assessment because the actions do not have an effect on the natural or physical environment.
As reported in USAID’s Climate Change Risk Profile for the Philippines in 2017, the country is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, sea level rise, increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising temperatures and extreme rainfall. The country lies in the world’s most cyclone-prone region, averaging 19-20 cyclones each year, of which 7 to 9 make landfall. These guarantee the high possibility of extreme weather events to happen. The Philippines’ vulnerability to typhoons is worsened by sea-level rise that affects its vast coastline and by its dependence on climate-sensitive natural resources.
The ADS 201mal puts in place the new Climate Risk Management guidance for USAID activities. This requires the Recipient will develop climate risk management measures to ensure that the RESPOND is more climate resilient and avoids maladaptation.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 19 of 42
SECTION B: FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION
B.1 ESTIMATE OF FUNDS AVAILABLE AND NUMBER OF AWARDS CONTEMPLATED
Subject to funding availability, USAID intends to provide $10million in total USAID funding over a five (5) year period.
USAID intends to award at least one (1) Cooperative Agreement pursuant to this notice of funding opportunity.
USAID reserves the right to fund any one or none of the applications submitted.
B.2 START DATE AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR FEDERAL AWARDS
The period of performance anticipated herein is five (5) years. The estimated start date will be upon the signature of the award.
32 B.3 SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT
A cooperative agreement implies a level of substantial involvement by USAID in certain programmatic elements during performance of the project. This substantial involvement will be through the Agreement Officer (AO), except to the extent that he/she delegates authority to the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR).
USAID will remain substantially involved during the implementation of this cooperative agreement in the following ways:
(a) Approval of the Recipient’s Implementation Plan. The annual Implementation Plan and subsequent revisions are subject to approval by the USAID Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) prior to implementing substantive work for each year of the Agreement. The AOR will ensure that the Implementation Plans align with the stated goals, milestones, and outputs as well as fit within the scope, terms and conditions of the agreement.
(b) Approval of Specified Key Personnel. The following positions have been designated as key to the successful implementation of the activity objectives of this agreement. These personnel are subject to approval by the Agreement Officer (AO):
Position Name Chief of Party [TBD at award] Deputy Chief of Party [TBD at award]
Prior to replacing the key personnel, the Recipient must immediately notify both the Agreement Officer and the AOR reasonably in advance and must submit a written justification, including a proposed plan for replacement, in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the activity. No replacement of
32 This Substantial Involvement section is subject to change following the Collaborative Workshop and submission of the Final Application of Phase 3
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 20 of 42 personnel may be made without the prior approval of the Agreement Officer.
(c) Joint Collaboration. The Recipient’s successful accomplishment of activity objectives will benefit from USAID’s technical knowledge, collaboration or joint participation in the following areas:
(1) Approval of the Recipient’s Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (AMEL) Plan, including indicators, baseline levels, and targets. In consultation with USAID through the AOR, the Recipient will develop the ME&L Plan which will align the monitoring and reporting framework, and other relevant reporting mechanisms required by USAID/Philippines. During the first sixty (60) days from award date, the Recipient will work closely with the AOR to establish major milestones, program monitoring indicators, as well as baseline data and performance targets which will demonstrate successful achievement of the results expected from the activity.
(2) Participation as a member of a multi-stakeholder committee, if established by the Recipient and USAID, that is convened to address any programmatic or technical issues. This is not intended to be a committee for routine administrative matters.
(3) Monitoring the Activity. USAID will monitor the “RESPOND” activity to ensure activities are supporting Mission purpose, to share best practices and capture lessons learned and will authorize direction and/or redirection of interventions specified in the Program Description due to GPH and US foreign policy objectives and priorities, as well as interrelationships with other programs, including those of USAID’s. Monitoring includes but will not be limited to site visits; engagement of STTA or subject matter experts, reviewing terms of reference, quarterly and other types of reports, deliverables and other products; and participating in technical meetings as appropriate.
(4) Approval of Subawards. All subawards, within the budget ceiling, including substantive provisions, will require prior written approval of the AOR. The AOR will participate in sub-grant review, selection, and concurrence of the scope of each sub-grant. Any subawards exceeding the budget ceiling will require approval of the Agreement Officer.
(5) The AOR will approve protocol guidance of the Recipient for communicating with high level host government officials and stakeholders.
B.4 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE
The geographic code for this program is 937.
B.5 NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USAID AND THE RECIPIENT
The principal purpose of the relationship with the Recipient and the subject program is to transfer funds to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation of the RESPOND Activity which is authorized by Federal statute. The successful Recipient will be responsible for ensuring the achievement of the program objectives and the efficient and effective administration of the award through the application of sound management practices. The Recipient will assume responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. [END OF SECTION B]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 21 of 42
SECTION C: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
C.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
ELIGIBILITY: Only Philippine organizations as defined below are eligible for an award under this RFA. Applications must be from qualified local, non-governmental Philippine entities, such as private, non- profit organizations (or for-profit companies willing to forego profits), including private voluntary organizations, universities, research organizations, professional associations, and relevant special interest associations.
USAID defines a local organization as one that:
● Is organized under the laws of the Philippines; ● Has its principal place of business in Philippines; ● Is majority-owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the Philippines, or is managed by a governing body, the majority of whose members are citizens or lawful permanent residents of Philippines; and ● Is not controlled by a foreign entity or by an individual or individuals who are not citizens or permanent residents of Philippines.
The term “control” or "controlled by” in the above definition means having a majority ownership or beneficial interest, or the power, either directly or indirectly, whether exercised or exercisable, to control the election, appointment, or tenure of the organization’s managers or a majority of the organization’s governing body by any means, e.g., ownership, contract, or operation of law. The term “Foreign Entity” means an organization that fails to meet any part of the “local organization” definition.
USAID will not accept applications from individuals. All applicants must be legally recognized, non- governmental organizations under applicable law. Only one application is allowed from each eligible applicant.
Applicants submitting an application must: ● Have a valid DUNS number (http://fedgov.dnd.com/webform) and provide this information in its application; ● Be registered in the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov); and, ● Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award, or an application, or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
USAID will not make an award to an applicant if the applicant has not fully complied with the DUNS and SAM requirements by the time it is ready to make the award.
Applicants must have established financial management, monitoring and evaluation processes, internal control systems, and policies and procedures that comply with established U.S. Government standards, laws, and regulations. The successful applicant(s) may be subject to a responsibility determination assessment (Pre-award Survey) by the Agreement Officer.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 22 of 42
C.2 COST SHARING OR MATCHING
USAID requires a cost share of at least US$100,000 for the life of project. Negotiations regarding the level and composition of the cost share will take place during the Collaborative Workshop.
For guidance on cost share, please see ADS 303.3.10 (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303.pdf).
For Non-U.S. NGOs, all cost sharing will be subject to the Required as Applicable Standard Provision “Cost Share” in ADS 303mab (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303mab.pdf).
C.3 NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
The prime applicant may submit only one application. Sub-partners may be included in multiple applications. Applicants are directed to review the other requirements for applications specified herein, including, but not limited to Section D and E. herein. This limitation is on the submitting organization only. Projects proposed with an implementation period of more than five (5) years will not be considered. [END OF SECTION C]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 23 of 42
SECTION D: APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
D.1 AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT
Name: Anthony R. Raneses Title: Agreement Officer Address: Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance (ROAA) USAID/Philippines, 3/F Annex 2 Building U.S. Embassy Compound, 1000 Ermita, Manila, Philippines Email: [email protected] Tel: (632) 301-4919
Questions and Answers: All questions regarding this RFA should be submitted in writing to [email protected] with a copy to Elvira Dela Cruz at [email protected]
All questions must be submitted in writing not later than the due date and time indicated on the cover letter. Answers to questions will be made available to all Applicants through a Question and Answer document and/or, if needed, an amendment to the RFA posted on www.grants.gov. Please check the Grants.gov website regularly for any amendments.
D.2 OVERALL SELECTION PROCESS
There will be three Merit Review phases under this RFA. The purpose of this process is to identify an Applicant that will have the greatest chance of success in the Philippines to achieve the activity objectives.
Merit Review Phase 1: Applicants are invited to submit an Initial Application not to exceed the page limit and submission instructions set forth in Section D.4. No budget or cost application will be accepted at this time. Initial Applications will be evaluated in accordance with the merit review criteria set forth in Section E.2. A limited number of Applicants, no more than five (5), will be invited for Phase 2.
In the event USAID determines none of the initial applications received are acceptable, USAID may issue an amendment to this RFA to again seek interested applicants.
Merit Review Phase 2: Selected Applicants will be invited to orally present the technical approach approximately two (2) weeks after Initial Applications are received. This in-person oral presentation is a requirement. The format, technical requirements, and venue will be made available to those Applicants invited to participate in the oral presentations. All proposed Key Personnel must attend.
USAID will not be responsible for costs associated with travel or presentation costs.
One applicant will be selected from the Merit Review Phase 2 as the Apparently Successful Applicant (ASA). The ASA will be notified by letter approximately two weeks after completion of oral presentations.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 24 of 42
At the completion of Phase 2, the competitive process of ADS 303 will be satisfied.
Program Description Development Workshop (Co-creation Workshop) Phase 3: Approximately two weeks after ASA notification, a collaborative workshop will be hosted by USAID Philippines. This workshop, attended by the ASA, USAID, and potentially other stakeholders, will bring together the selected technical approach to further define activities.
Programmatic budget levels will also be determined during this phase. The goal is that after the workshop, a programmatic framework will be in place, which clearly illustrates how the ASA will implement the project. The ASA should also anticipate commencing budget negotiations during this workshop. Additional information regarding the logistics and content of the workshop will be provided as part of the ASA Notification Letter.
Following the Collaborative Workshop, the ASA will have approximately two weeks to continue to remotely refine its approach and finalize the Program Description and accompanying cost/business application. The ASA will have two (2) weeks to respond and submit its final application. The final technical and cost/business applications will be reviewed and an award will be drafted and provided to the ASA for review.
USAID reserves the right to select another applicant from the pool of Phase 2 participants in case final agreement is not reached with initially selected ASA.
No funding will be made available prior to the award of the Cooperative Agreement, applicants, including the organization selected to collaboratively develop the Program Description, are responsible for all costs related to the oral presentation phase and Program Description Development Workshop. Once the award is signed, the implementing partner may start incurring costs. However, USAID reserves the right to make funding available during Phase 3, if necessary.
D.3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Applicants are expected to review, understand and respond to all the requirements of this Request for Application (RFA) prior to submission to USAID. Applicants must ensure the completeness of the application package before submission and that submissions be received by USAID not later than the date specified in the covering letter of this RFA. USAID will only review applications that are complete and submitted on time.
Applications must be submitted electronically to [email protected] not later than the dated specified at the covering letter of this RFA. USAID will notify the applicants of the receipt of their application via email.
D.4 CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION:
Phase 1- Concept Paper Review The concept paper should be specific, complete, concisely written and responsive to the requirements of this RFA. The application should demonstrate the Applicant's capabilities and expertise to undertake the scope of work for this RFA. The application should also take into account the requirements of the
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 25 of 42
program and evaluation criteria found in this RFA.
The written Concept Paper should be limited to 20 pages inclusive of the elements identified in this section and all attachments (with several exceptions listed below). The Technical Application should be in English, printed out on 8 1/2" x 11" paper, single-spaced and page-numbered. Applicants must use Arial 11-point font or a similar typeset. Information submitted in the Technical Application over 20 pages will not be evaluated.
The concept paper’s 20 -page limit does not include the following: • Cover Page, which should include program title, the RFA number (RFA-675-17-00001), name of organization applying, DUNS No., any partnerships, and the primary authorized contact person for the application (including title, email address, phone number and signature of the authorized individual) • Table of Contents • Executive Summary • Annexes • Diagrams or Drawings
Detailed information should be presented only when required by specific RFA instructions.
A. Technical Approach
The Program must demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues and challenges in regulatory reform in the Philippines and how these reforms can help advance the Philippine government's and USAID's development Agenda. The approach should be supported by a thorough analysis of the challenges to competitiveness and inclusive economic growth. This section must include a clear description of the conceptual approach and the general strategy (i.e. methodology and techniques) being proposed and explain how the approach is expected to achieve the proposed objectives. Applicants must specify annual and end of program results in the design of the program that directly contribute to the expected results.
The Applicant should be able to clearly describe all program's objectives, approach, methodology, and component in a theory of change.
Applicants are encouraged to propose innovative programs designed to reach the desired outcomes/results of the program. The technical approach and methodology must also build upon the good practices and lessons learned/developed by the applicant, other organizations, or USAID under similar programs.
The concept paper must proposed a project strategy for addressing regulatory issues; evidence of structured thinking behind proposed intervention model, as expressed by a coherent theory of change.
B. Management and Staffing Plan
As part of the concept paper, applicants must submit a Management and Staffing Plan that clearly describes the organizational structure of the program team and how each of the program components
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 26 of 42
will be managed. The organizational structure should identify positions, roles and responsibilities of the proposed staff members and the lines of authority and accountabilities between and among staff members. The management plan should identify potential implementing partners and clearly state the responsibilities of each proposed implementing partner in achieving the proposed results. The plan should also include organization for budget monitoring, reporting and financial controls.
Key Personnel Qualifications - The Applicant must include CVs and/or resumes of all proposed key personnel and other important managerial and technical personnel proposed to this program activity, including a minimum of three (3) references with email addresses. This section should indicate each proposed candidate’s key qualifications, expertise, capabilities and relevant experience for implementing similar work.
Phase 2- Oral Presentations The applicants that were rated the highest during the concept paper review will be invited to present their concept papers orally. USAID will notify these applicants on the date of their scheduled presentation, and will give the applicant two weeks to prepare for their oral presentation. At the time of the notification, USAID will also provide the applicants with the discussion items based on the review of Concept Papers, and additional guidance for the oral presentation, if necessary, including the content and format of the presentation and the duration of the presentation and discussions. The applicant’s presenting team should be composed of at least by a senior representative of the prime organization, the proposed Chief of Party and other technical leads who are in the best position to respond to queries from the selection panel. USAID will only accommodate up to five attendees from one applicant including the proposed Chief of Party, the Deputy Chief of Party and other technical leads. All oral presentations WILL BE IN-PERSON.
All oral presentations will be evaluated and scored by the selection committee in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in this RFA.
Phase 3- Co-creation - NOTE: On the Apparent successful applicant will be invited to participate - See Annex 1 for more details.
The applicant that succeeded the Phase 2 of the selection process will be invited to join the co-creation phase which will result in the submission of Full Technical and Cost/Business Applications for final evaluation. USAID reserves the right to select another Applicant from the oral presentation phase in case final agreement is not reached with the initially selected Applicant. There will be no evaluation factors during this phase but the resulting co-created program design incorporating the proposed full cost for the entire duration of the activity, will be the final technical application which will be incorporated into the resulting Cooperative Agreement. The final technical application/program description is the most important part of consideration in making the award decision.
D.5 BRANDING AND MARKING PLAN
Under 2 CFR 700.16, USAID requires the submission of a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan from only the Apparently Successful Applicant; therefore, Applicants do not need to submit a draft Branding
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 27 of 42
Strategy and Marking Plan with the initial application. More information on the Branding Strategy and Marking Plan are available at https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/320.pdf.
D.6 FUNDING RESTRICTIONS
USAID policy is not to award profit under assistance instruments. However, all reasonable, allocable and allowable expenses, both direct and indirect, which are related to the agreement program and are in accordance with applicable cost principles under 2 CFR 200 Subpart E may be paid under the anticipated award.
D.7 UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS
Unsuccessful applications will not be returned to Applicants. [END OF SECTION D]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 28 of 42
SECTION E: APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
E.1 GENERAL
All applications will be reviewed in accordance with the review criteria set forth below. The purpose of the merit process is to identify an Applicant with the best approach to achieve the RESPOND Project objectives, as described in Section A; Program Description.
The criteria presented below have been tailored to the requirements of this RFA. Applicants should note that these criteria serve to: (a) identify the significant matters that Applicants should address in their applications, and (b) set the standards against which applications will be evaluated. The criteria listed below are presented so that Applicants will know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of their applications during the appropriate phase.
E.2 PHASE 1 – INITIAL APPLICATION (CONCEPT PAPER)
The Initial Application should be written from a comprehensive viewpoint that shows innovations and approaches proposed by the Applicant and lays out how the Applicant is uniquely capable of achieving the results set forth in the Program Description.
The Initial Application will be reviewed based on the following merit criteria. The technical approach will be evaluated of equal importance as management plan.
USAID will conduct a merit review, using adjectival ratings of all applications received that comply with the instructions in this RFA. Applications will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:
1. Technical Approach
The technical approach will demonstrate how well the Applicant has understood the technical requirements of the project. It will consider whether a feasible, clear implementation approach for each step that leads to high quality and timely completion of each of the components has been detailed in the application. This criterion will look at the extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the objectives of the program and proposes innovative and feasible plan to achieve results. It will look into the adequacy of resources to complete each step and deliverable on time these reforms can help advance the Philippine government’s and USAID’s development agenda. The merit review will also consider coherence, clarity, quality and feasibility of Applicant’s proposed approach to developing and implementing the program to achieve desired results, including realistic estimation of required resources to sustain or enhance impact and address risks; value-added of approach with identified key performance indicators (KPIs) and meaningful milestones.
2. Management Plan
The management plan should provide a solid, streamlined plan with a clear organizational structure
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 29 of 42
describing the roles and responsibilities, and the internal and external reporting arrangements. It will consider how well proposed candidates meet the qualifications detailed in section for Key Personnel, and the extent to which the Application provides a rational staffing mix that includes technical and non- technical personnel. The Applicant should demonstrate how the proposed management arrangements will contribute to the effective, innovative and efficient use of technical assistance to support project objectives. The management plan should include the organization and key personnel’s experience and expertise in project management and implementation, budget monitoring and reporting, building viable and sustainable partnerships.
E.3 PHASE 2 – ORAL PRESENTATION
The Oral Presentation and follow up question responses will be reviewed based on the following merit criteria. The criteria listed below are presented in a descending order of importance:
● Technical Approach ● Organizational Management and Staffing ● Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning methodology
(a) Technical Approach
The Applicant will be evaluated on: ● The extent to which the Applicant clearly demonstrates how its Theory of Change is feasible to achieve the activity results. ● The extent to which the Applicant demonstrates that its proposed realistic implementation plan with innovative interventions conceptually and operationally that are feasible to achieve the activity results. • The extent to which the Applicant can demonstrate its ability to adapt to changing dynamics on the ground address risks, and sustain impact ● The Applicant demonstrates an understanding of gender structure and bias in society, and how it will integrate the gender perspective discussed in the Program Description into the RESPOND Activity in order to achieve the activity results.
(b) Organizational Management and Staffing. The Applicant will be evaluated on:
● The Applicant demonstrates a feasible approach to ensure effective coordination and collaboration with various partners, including GOP, other non-state organizations and other USAID projects/activities. ● The Applicant clearly articulates how the Applicant intends to satisfy potential recipients and manage the sub-grant component of the activity. ● The extent to which the Applicant demonstrates that its proposed use of consortium members/partners/sub-partners/local networks (as applicable) will achieve the various results sought. ● The Applicant must clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of the Home Office and field- based staff, including their assigned management and decision-making authorities, and how this organizational structure will effectively and efficiently achieve the objectives. ● The Applicant demonstrates that its proposed staffing plan and staffing mix of skills and
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 30 of 42
knowledge will enable the Applicant to implement the proposed technical approach effectively.
(c) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Methodology
• The Applicant will be evaluated on the extent to which it clearly describes its MEL, methodology and how the structure of the proposed MEL system will apply adaptive management techniques to inform activity management and key decisions.
E.4 PHASE 3 – FINAL TECHNICAL AND COST/BUSINESS APPLICATIONS
Only the Apparent Successful Applicant (ASA) who succeeded from Phase 2 Merit Review will be invited to submit its Full Technical and Cost/Business Application for evaluation.
USAID reserves the right to select another applicant from the pool of merit review Phase 2 participants in case final agreement is not reached with the initially selected ASA.
(a) Final Technical Application/Program Description There will be no evaluation factors during Phase 3 (Program Description Design Workshop) but the resulting Program Description developed during the workshop will be the final technical application which will be incorporated into the resulting Cooperative Agreement.
The final technical application/program description is the most important part of consideration in making the award decision.
At this stage, USAID/Philippines will evaluate the Final Technical Application of the ASA as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. In the event that negotiations fail to improve the ASA’s final technical application/ program description, the Agreement Officer may determine the application as “Unacceptable”.
(b) Final Cost/Business Application
During the Collaboration Workshop, USAID/Philippines and the ASA will commence negotiation regarding the anticipated costs associated with implementing the Program Description. Following the Workshop, the ASA will finalize a Cost/Business Application based upon the discussions.
The Cost/Business Application will be reviewed separately from the Technical Application. Although Cost/Business Application will not be rated, the Applicant should have a structure that will allow it to provide the greatest value (highest result) at a reasonable cost.
Cost will be reviewed for general completeness, reasonableness, allowability and allocability. Cost realism is an assessment of the accuracy with the proposed costs and represents the most probable cost of performance within the Applicant’s technical and management approach. Cost realism review will be performed as part of the review process to: (i) verify the Applicant’s understanding of the activity objective; (ii) assess the degree to which the cost application reflects the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the technical application as well as the risk that the Applicant will provide the supplies or services for the offered cost; and (iii) assess the degree to which the cost included in the cost
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 31 of 42
application accurately represent the work effort included in the technical application.
The Final Cost/Business Application will also be reviewed to ensure that all compliance requirements have been satisfied and the Agreement Officer can make an affirmative determination of responsibility.
E.5 AWARD DECISION
Once an Apparently Successful Applicant is identified, additional information and discussion may occur between the Applicant and USAID Agreement Officer before the Agreement Officer makes the final funding decision.
The recommendation or selection of an application for award does not in any way guarantee an award. The USAID Agreement Officer must be fully satisfied that the Applicant has the capacity to adequately perform in accordance with standards established by USAID and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This issue of organizational capability is generally referred to as a pre-award “risk assessment.” The Agreement Officer must also complete any other necessary pre-award arrangements. [END OF SECTION E]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 32 of 42
SECTION F: FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
F.1 FEDERAL AWARD NOTICE
A notice of award signed by the Agreement Officer is the authorizing document for this RFA. The notice of award will be provided electronically to the successful applicant’s point of contact listed in the application. Notification will also be made electronically to unsuccessful applicants pursuant to ADS 303.3.7.1.b. For the successful application, USAID may reach out to the applicant with clarifying questions and a request for a revised application by a specified date. USAID reserves the right to award without requesting clarifications or additional detail on an application.
Award of the agreement contemplated by this RFA cannot be made until funds have been appropriated, allocated and committed through internal USAID procedures. While USAID anticipates that these procedures will be successfully completed, potential applicants are hereby notified of these requirements and conditions for the award. The Agreement Officer is the only individual who may legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds. No costs chargeable to the proposed Agreement may be incurred before receipt of either a fully executed Agreement or a specific, written authorization from the Agreement Officer.
F.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS
The cooperative agreement will be administered in accordance with ADS 303mab, Standard Provisions for Non-U.S. Non-governmental Organizations
(https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303mab.pdf)
USAID/Philippines Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance (ROAA) will administer this award. The AO will designate an AOR to review, concur and/or approve on items outlined in Substantial Involvement (Section B.3 of this RFA).
F.3 PRE-AWARD SURVEYS
For organizations that are new to working with USAID or for organizations with outstanding audit findings, USAID may perform a pre-award survey to assess the Apparently Successful Application’s management and financial capabilities. If notified by USAID that a pre-award survey is necessary, the ASA must prepare, in advance, the required information and documents.
The additional documents that may be requested are By-laws, constitution, articles of incorporation, organizational policies on travel, procurement, financial management, personnel, etc. When requested, the ASA shall provide copies of the requested additional documents. Please note that a pre-award survey does not commit USAID to make any award. The Agreement Officer is the only individual who may legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds.
F.4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Recipient will submit all reports by the due date for approval from the Agreement Officer’s Representative
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 33 of 42
(AOR). The Recipient will consult with the AOR on the format and content prior to submission. In addition to the reports below, the AOR may request additional information to contribute to the internal USAID project reviews.
(a) Program Reporting
The Recipient must submit a copy of each report required by this Agreement to the Agreement Officer, the AOR, and the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). Submission to the DEC must be through the public-facing and searchable DEC Web site (http://dec.usaid.gov).
The title page of all reports forwarded to USAID must include a descriptive title, the author's name, Cooperative Agreement number, the project number and title, the Recipient’s name, the name of the USAID office, and the publication or issuance date of the report.
(1) Annual Implementation Plan
The Recipient must work with USAID to develop and submit an initial annual implementation work plan within 45 days of the effective date of the award. Subsequent annual implementation plans will be submitted within 30 days before the start of the succeeding fiscal year. The AOR will review and approve the plan within 15 days after receipt of the draft implementation plan. The implementation plan must include, at a minimum:
• Proposed accomplishments and expected progress towards achieving program results and performance measures tied to the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan • Timeline for implementation of the year’s proposed interventions, including target completion dates • Information on how interventions will be put in place • Gender Action Plan that will define how gender will be integrated in the activity cycle • Environmental Risk Mitigation Plan which will describe how environmental compliance and climate risk management will be integrated into activity interventions • Personnel requirements to achieve expected outcomes • Details of collaboration with other major partners • Annual budget with estimates of projected monthly expenditures
(2) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan
The MEL Plan must describe the agreed upon framework of goals, outcomes, and outputs for the program, along with performance indicators, baselines and targets defined for each, and sex-disaggregated where appropriate. The MEL Plan must describe the evaluative work that the implementing partner will conduct for its own management decision-making, institutional learning, and accountability purposes (see ADS 203.3.1, as revised, for more detailed guidance). During the first sixty (60) days after the award is made, the Recipient will work closely with the USAID AOR to finalize its MEL Plan. The plan must identify specific indicators for measuring the following aspects of the recipient’s performance:
• progress toward meeting program objectives and sub-objectives;
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 34 of 42
• time frame for achieving these objectives and sub-objectives;
The Recipient will collaborate with the USAID AOR to review/update its MEL Plan, and to monitor and report to USAID.
Both quantitative and qualitative indicators need to be developed and special attention paid to data sources, collection methods, and data quality assessment.
Program monitoring and evaluation comprises an essential component of this cooperative agreement for the following reasons: • informs USAID of progress; • enables detailed and on-going design of activities and sub-activities; • builds counterparts’ capacity to collect and analyze the data for sound decision-making; and
At a minimum, the MEL Plan must include the following: • Automated and other methods used to gather, store, manipulate, summarize, analyze, and/or report performance data. • Procedures for regular communication with USAID regarding the status of monitoring activities, including a means for early notification of problems. • Means of addressing a discovered lack of progress or success. Procedures will focus on learning from mistakes, analyzing them, and ascertaining the reason for missteps. • A learning and research agenda and how this agenda will help achieve activity level results and contribute to national and international knowledge and learning.
Information about all activities to be monitored under the MEL Plan. The list of activities must be provided in a logical framework which:
• Links activities to Agreement results—both those dictated by USAID in the program description and lower level or complementary results contained in the Recipient’s approach. • Describes assumptions being made about the relationship of the activity to the Agreement result. • Identifies the indicators against which progress is to be measured. Includes methods to be used for monitoring • Provides an illustrative schedule for discrete monitoring activities tied to the overall program implementation plan.
Gender Consideration:
To the greatest extent possible, the Recipient should seek to include both men and women in all aspects of this program including participation and leadership in e.g., meetings, training, etc. The Recipient must collect, analyze and submit to USAID sex-disaggregated data and proposed actions that will address any identified gender-related issues.
In order to ensure that USAID assistance makes the maximum optimal contribution to gender equality, performance management systems and evaluations must include gender-sensitive indicators and sex- disaggregated data when the technical analyses supporting the Agreement demonstrates that:
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 35 of 42
In order to ensure that USAID assistance makes the maximum optimal contribution to gender equality, performance management systems and evaluations must include gender-sensitive indicators and sex- disaggregated data when the technical analyses supporting the Agreement demonstrates that: • The different roles and status of women and men affect the activities to be undertaken; and • The anticipated results of the work would affect women and men differently.
(3) Quarterly Performance Reports
The Recipient will submit quarterly reports that give insight into the progress of planned activities. Such reports follows USAID fiscal quarters, i.e., Quarter 1 covers October-December; Quarter 2 covers January- March; Quarter 3 covers April-June; Quarter 4 covers July-September. The quarterly report is due within 30 days after the fiscal quarter’s end. In lieu of the fourth quarter report, the Recipient will submit an Annual Progress Report (see Section F.4(4)4 below).
The narrative report will include qualitative and quantitative information describing activities carried out and specific results achieved during the quarter. In addition, the narrative report will indicate key implementation challenges encountered and how they were, or are planned to be, resolved. To the extent where MEL Plan includes quarterly targets, this should be reflected in the narrative report.
(4) Annual Progress Reports
The Recipient must submit an annual progress report within 30 days after the end of the fiscal year to cover annual performance from the fiscal year. At a minimum, both quarterly and annual progress reports will contain: • Progress (interventions completed, benchmarks achieved, and performance standards completed) made since the last report by region and province as applicable • Problems encountered and whether they were solved or are still outstanding • Proposed solutions to new or ongoing problems • Success stories • Security concerns • Information on new opportunities for program expansion • Qualitative data on program achievement and results • Updated MEL Plan, as an attachment • Documentation of the best practices that can be taken to scale • Progress to date on sustainability, gender and environmental risk mitigation plans • Update on monthly expenditures for the quarter vis-à-vis annual budget
(5) Close-out Plan
No later than six (6) months prior to the completion date of the agreement, the Recipient will submit a close-out plan for the Agreement Officer (AO) approval. The close-out plan shall include:
• Draft property disposition plan • Plan for the phase-out of in-country operations • Delivery schedule for all reports or other deliverables required under the agreement
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 36 of 42
• Timetable for completing all required actions in the close-out plan, including submission date of the final property disposition plan to the AO
(6) Final Report
The Recipient must submit, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of this cooperative agreement, a detailed final report. The final report will cover the entire period of the award and will include, but is not limited to: (i) executive summary; (ii) overall description of the activities and methods of assistance used under the Program during the period of this Cooperative Agreement, and the significance of these activities; (iii) brief description of the cumulative results towards achieving the program objectives and the performance indicators, as well as an analysis of how the indicators illustrate the program’s impact on the accomplishment of the program’s overall objectives; (iv) an assessment of impact of the program in assisting USAID in meeting targets, as well as any unmet targets and the reasons for them; (v) section reporting on gender, sustainability and institutionalization, environmental compliance and climate risk mitigation; (vi) success stories; (vii) discussion on the issues and problems that emerged during program implementation and how they were overcome; (viii) cost-effectiveness; (ix) lessons learned; and (x) recommendations for USAID’s future interventions.
The final/completion report shall also contain an index of all reports and information products produced under this agreement.
(2) Final Financial Report
Within 90 days following the estimated completion date of this award, the Recipient must submit to the: (a) USAID/Washington, M/CFO/CMP-LOC Unit; (b) Agreement Officer ([email protected]); (c) Controller ([email protected]); and (c) Agreement Officer Representative (AOR), the final Federal Financial Form (SF-425).
(3) Foreign Tax Reports
Reporting of foreign taxes under this agreement shall follow the standard provision entitled “Reporting Host Government Taxes (December 2014)” of this award document.
Host government taxes are not allowable where the Agreement Officer provides the necessary means to the recipient to obtain an exemption or refund of such taxes, and the recipient fails to take reasonable steps to obtain such exemption or refund. Otherwise, taxes are allowable in accordance with the Standard Provision, “Applicability of 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 700 (December 2014),” and must be reported as required
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 37 of 42
in this provision.
The Recipient must include this reporting requirement in all applicable sub-agreements, including subawards and contracts.
F.5 PROGRAM INCOME
If the successful applicant is a non-profit organization, any program income generated under the award will be added to USAID funding (and any cost-sharing that may be provided, if applicable), and used for program purposes. However, pursuant to 2 CFR 200.307 Program Income, if the successful Applicant is a for-profit or commercial organization, any program income generated under the award will be deducted from the U.S. Government share of this award to determine the amount of USAID funding.
Program income will be subject to 2 CFR 200.307 for U.S. NGOs or the standard provision entitled Program Income for non-U.S. NGOs. If the successful Applicant is/are a PIO, any program income generated under the award will be added to USAID funding (and any non-USAID funding that mat be provided) and used for program purposes.
F.6 BRANDING & MARKING
It is a federal statutory and regulatory requirement that all USAID programs, projects, activities, public communications, and commodities that USAID partially or fully funded under a USAID grant or cooperative agreement or other assistance award or sub-award, must be marked appropriately overseas with the USAID identity. See Section 641, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended and 2 CFR 700.16.
Under the regulation, USAID requires the submission of a Branding Strategy and a Marking Plan by the Apparently Successful Applicant, as defined in the regulation. A Branding Implementation Strategy and Marking Plan must be in accordance with USAID Branding and Marking Plan as required per ADS 320 at the following link:
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/320.pdf
The Branding and Marking Plan may include a request for a waiver or exceptions to marking requirements established in 2 CFR 700.16. The Agreement Officer is responsible for evaluating and approving the Branding Strategy and Marking Plan (including any request for exceptions and waiver) of the ASA, consistent with the provisions”Branding Strategy”, “Marking Plan”, and “Marking of USAID-funded Assistance Awards” contained in AAPD 05-11 and in 2 CFR 700.16. Please note that in contrast to “exception” to marking requirements, waivers based on circumstances in the host country must be approved by the Mission Director or other uSAID Principal Officers, see 1 CFR 700.16(j).
F.7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
(a) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, Section 117 requires that the impact of USAID’s activities on the environment be considered and that USAID include environmental sustainability as a central consideration in designing and carrying out its development programs. This mandate is codified in Federal Regulations (22 CFR 216) and in USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) Parts 201.5.10g
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 38 of 42
(http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/201.pdf) and 204 (http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/204.pdf), which, in part, require that the potential environmental impacts of USAID-financed activities are identified prior to a final decision to proceed and that appropriate environmental safeguards are adopted for all activities. The Recipient’s environmental compliance obligations under these regulations and procedures are specified in the following paragraphs of this cooperative agreement.
(b) In addition, the Recipient must comply with host country environmental regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by USAID. In case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the latter shall govern.
(c) No activity funded under this cooperative agreement will be implemented unless an environmental threshold determination, as defined by 22 CFR 216, has been reached for that activity, as documented in a determination of exemption, an approved Determination of Categorical Exclusion. Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), or Environmental Assessment (EA). (Hereinafter, such documents are described as "approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation.").
(d) An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been approved for this program. It has been determined that the activity is fully within the class of Categorical Exclusions. As per 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2), neither an Initial Environmental Examination, or an Environmental Assessment is required for an activity which is determined to fall within one or more of the categories listed at 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2)(i) education, technical assistance or training programs; and at 22 CFR 216.2(c)(2)(iii) analysis, studies, academic research, workshops and meetings.
(e) As part of its Work Plan, the Recipient, in collaboration with the AOR and Mission Environmental Officer (MEO), shall review all ongoing and planned activities under this cooperative agreement to determine if they are within the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation. If the Recipient plans any new activities outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation, it shall prepare an amendment to the documentation for USAID review and approval. No such new activities shall be undertaken prior to receiving written USAID approval of environmental documentation amendments. Any ongoing activities found to be outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation shall be halted until an amendment to the documentation is submitted and written approval is received from USAID.
(f) When the approved Regulation 216 documentation is (1) an IEE that contains one or more Negative Determinations with conditions and/or (2) an EA, the Recipient shall:
(i) Unless the approved Regulation 216 documentation contains a complete environmental mitigation and monitoring plan (EMMP) or a program mitigation and monitoring (M&M) plan, the Recipient shall prepare an EMMP or M&M Plan describing how the Recipient will, in specific terms, implement all IEE and/or EA conditions that apply to proposed program activities within the scope of the award. The EMMP or M&M Plan shall include monitoring the implementation of the conditions and their effectiveness. (ii) Integrate a completed EMMP or M&M Plan into the initial implementation plan. (iii) Integrate an EMMP or M&M Plan into subsequent Annual Implementation Plans, making any necessary adjustments to activity implementation in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment.
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 39 of 42
(g) Subaward Provision: A provision for subawards is included under this award; therefore, the Recipient will be required to use an Environmental Review Form (ERF) or Environmental Review (ER) checklist using impact assessment tools to screen grant proposals to ensure the funded proposals will result in no adverse environmental impact, to develop mitigation measures, as necessary, and to specify monitoring and reporting.
Use of the ERF or ER checklist is called for when the nature of the grant proposals to be funded is not well enough known to make an informed decision about their potential environmental impacts, yet due to the type and extent of activities to be funded, any adverse impacts are expected to be easily mitigated. Implementation of sub-grant activities cannot go forward until the ERF or ER checklist is completed and approved by USAID. Recipient is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures specified by the ERF or ER checklist process are implemented.
The Recipient will be responsible for periodic reporting to the USAID AOR, as specified in this award. Both AOR and MEO reviews the report but the MEO clears on the document. [END OF SECTION F]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 40 of 42
SECTION G: FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACT(S)
G.1 AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT
Name: Anthony R. Raneses Title: Agreement Officer, USAID/Philippines, ROAA Email: [email protected] and [email protected] Any prospective Applicant desiring an explanation or interpretation of this RFA must request it in writing by the due date and time specified on the cover page of this RFA in order to allow a reply to reach all prospective Applicants before the submission of their Initial Application. Oral explanations or instructions given before award will not be binding. Any information given to a prospective Applicant concerning this RFA will be furnished promptly to all other prospective Applicants as an amendment of this RFA if that information is necessary in submitting applications or if lack of it would be prejudicial to any other prospective Applicants. [END OF SECTION G]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 41 of 42
SECTION H: OTHER INFORMATION
USAID reserves the right to fund any or none of the applications submitted. The Agreement Officer is the only individual who may legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds. Any award and subsequent incremental funding will be subject to the availability of funds and continued relevance to Agency programming.
Applications with Proprietary Data
Applicants who include data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the U.S. Government except for evaluation purpose, should mark the cover page with the following:
“This application includes data that must not be disclosed duplicated, used, or disclosed – in whole or in part – for any purpose other than to evaluate this application. If, however, an award is made as a result of – or in connection with – the submission of this data, the U.S. Government will have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting award. This restriction does not limit the U.S. Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets {insert sheet numbers}.”
Additionally, the Applicant must mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following:
“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this application.” [END OF SECTION H]
RFA 72049218RFA00011 RESPOND Activity Page 42 of 42