REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Transcription

1 Program: mstar, Enhancing a Digitally Enabled Seed System in Nepal Solicitation No.: Authority: USAID Award No. AID-OAA-A Date of Issuance: June 26, 2017 Due Date for Questions: July 7, :00 PM US EDT Response to Questions Posted: July 11, :00pm EDT Closing Date: July 28, :00 PM US EDT Estimated Award Date: Late September

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE STATEMENT OBJECTIVE & PROGRAM DESCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS Offerors Eligibility Funding and estimated period of performance Proposal Submission Deadline Submission Method for Questions and Proposals Review Process Proposal Contents Evaluation Criteria AWARD AND NOTIFICATION OF SELECTED PROPOSALS TERMS AND CONDITIONS Source of Funding and Geographic Code Withdrawal of proposals Right to Select/Reject Disclaimer Offer Verification False Statements in Offer Conflict of Interest Reserved Rights Governing Law and Language Certification of Independent Price Determination ATTACHMENTS

3 1 PURPOSE STATEMENT Background The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit proposals for funding from prospective subcontractors to support FHI 360 s implementation of the Mobile Solutions Technical Assistance and Research Program (mstar), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Award No. AID-OAA-A mstar is a strategic investment by USAID to advance mobile solutions and close the gaps that hold back access and uptake of mobile technology. The project supports broadbased coordinated action by a range of market stakeholders including governments, donors, mobile service providers, and their customers. mstar is supporting the Digital Development for Feed the Future (D2FTF) team a collaboration between the Bureau of Food Security and the Global Development Lab and USAID/Nepal to implement the Enhancing a Digitally Enabled Seed System in Nepal activity. The activity will support the Nepal Seed and Fertilizer Project (NASF), the Government of Nepal, USAID/Nepal, CGIAR research centers contributing to the seed systems of Nepal, the National Seed Company Ltd, the Seed Entrepreneurs Association of Nepal, farmers organizations, private seed companies, and other stakeholders to begin to leverage the full potential of digital tools and solutions to build a more digitally-enabled national seed system in Nepal. FHI 360 s mstar program is issuing this request for proposals to interested international development consulting firms or any other organization with expertise in designing technical system architecture incorporating a diverse range of applications and functionality, agriculture and seed systems, designing a multi-function web platform used by diverse stakeholders including large and small businesses and individuals, and a rich network of contacts within the agriculture and seed system community in Nepal. The proposed personnel who will carry out this work should have deep experience in the area of agriculture and seed systems, a strong professional reputation supported by a record of enhancing data systems structure, storage, and governance, as well as an extensive network of thought leaders and practitioners working in open data. In addition to the ability to perform the required tasks successfully, offerors should also have the relevant skills and experience to convene and facilitate a workshop engaging the key stakeholders in Nepal in discussion and design thinking about how to synergize their investments in digital tools and technologies according to an integrated, overarching vision for building more effective and adaptive seed systems from local to national scale This RFP is issued as a public notice to ensure that all interested, qualified, and eligible organizations have a fair opportunity to submit proposals for funding. 2 OBJECTIVE & ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Objective Seed systems are often characterized as formal versus informal or local. Most frequently, the formal seed system refers to seed supply systems which have been established to improve the quality of seeds and distribute improved and modern varieties to farmers. Formal seed systems typically involve seed breeding 3

4 organizations that release new varieties for distribution through commercial seed systems, extension programs and both governmental and non-governmental programs. However, many formal seed systems face significant constraints that have largely prevented them from delivering varieties appropriate for smallholder farmers in many of the world s agricultural zones. A fully digitally-enabled seed system will allow farmers, agrodealers, other value chain actors to access information about seed varieties, characteristics, etc. while allowing for feedback loops, enhanced access, increased transparency, and quality control. In this way, digital technologies hold the potential to help the NASF project achieve the its overarching goal to build competitive and synergistic seed and fertilizer value chains for inclusive and sustainable growth in agricultural productivity, business development and income generation. With this in mind, this activity will support the following interlinking objectives that the D2FTF and USAID/Nepal Feed the Future teams have agreed to collaborate on to begin to build more digitally-enabled seed systems in Nepal: Guide multiple stakeholders (key GON agencies, development partners, private sector and seed research agencies) to develop a vision and high-level roadmap of how the national seed system in Nepal can fully leverage digital technologies; Help digitally-enable critical information products and services for the national seed system Share findings and recommendations to help grow the body of knowledge regarding good practice in digitally-enabled seed systems. Tasks In order to accelerate data-driven agricultural development in Nepal, mstar seeks a highly qualified organization to perform the following tasks: Task 1: Develop a vision and high-level roadmap for a digitally-enabled seed system for Nepal The selected organization will work to guide multiple stakeholders towards an integrated, overarching digital vision for the national seed system of Nepal and identify key steps and processes to put this vision into practice. Sub-task 1.1: Survey key seed system actors The selected organization will develop a survey instrument and use it, via calls and in-person meetings, to survey the current characterization of the national seed system of Nepal. The survey instrument will seek to better understand the state of technology access and usage from the perspective of seed system actors. This survey tool will interview representatives of key stakeholder institutions in the national seed system of Nepal including: The Seed Quality Control Center (SQCC) of the Ministry of Agriculture The National Agriculture Research Council CGIAR research centers contributing to the seed system of Nepal The National Seed Company Ltd. 4

5 The Seed Entrepreneurs Association of Nepal (SEAN) Farmers Organizations Private seed companies The survey tool will focus on, but will not be limited to examining the following: The relationships of these entities from a high-level transactional perspective (what each institution provides or receives from each other) in their capacity as participants in the national seed system of Nepal. Data assets that are presently used to support these transactions and the form that these data assets are presently in (e.g. databases, spreadsheets on personal computers, paper files). Current use of any digital tools and technologies supporting these transactional relationships with other stakeholders (e.g. Enterprise Resource Planning systems, key databases, web or mobile applications). Examination of the ERPs will be limited to identifying what system is being used, whether it is open source or proprietary software, how the organization uses it, why the organization uses it, and what this might mean for the larger recommendations. Access to and use of the internet for web-based services and to telecommunications services: accessibility, affordability, reliability, bandwidth. Identification of systems or transactions that present particular potential bottlenecks or friction in the overall seed system of Nepal, from each stakeholder entity s perspective. Identification of human capacity and skill set working with data collection, storage, processing, analysis, and use Sub-task 1.2: Develop a diagram of the national seed system of Nepal The selected organization will build upon the survey conducted in sub-task 1.1, and working from the high-level understanding of the relationships between key institutions and actors in the national seed system, produce a one-page diagram that depicts the overall current system, illustrating a comprehensive understanding of stakeholders and transactions. The diagram should include, but not be limited to, the national agriculture division (NRA) within the Ministry of Agriculture that implements agriculture policy in Nepal, the regional agriculture offices that carry out NRA activities (including identifying farmers needs for basic seeds, first generation and second generation certified seeds of cooperatives, and transmit this information to the NRA), the seed laboratory, the economic institutions that introduce, create and improve seed varieties, the national seed service of Nepal, decentralized seed producer cooperatives, farmer organization associations of Nepal, rural development offices, non-governmental organizations, and the farmers themselves. Sub-task 1.3: Develop a diagram depicting the digital architecture vision of the national seed system of Nepal The selected organization will produce a one-page diagram that depicts key systems, functions, and data assets that must work together to digitally-enable the national seed system of Nepal that will help multiple stakeholder (including executive and non-technical personnel) to understand an overarching digital vision 5

6 for seed systems. The diagram will utilize good practice in in enterprise architecture design 1 and The will be accompanied by succint explanatory text. The one-page diagram will be presented to the NASF Project management team for review and validation. Sub-task 1.4: Validation workshop The selected organization will design and deliver a workshop, in collaboration with the NASF Project, with key stakeholders in the national seed system of Nepal identified in sub-task 1.1. The purpose of this workshop is to build out the diagram depicting the digital architecture vision of the national seed system of Nepal and build consensus around ways in which a formal, national seed system can be digitally-enabled. This workshop will include content, at a minimum, on: Present high-level findings from stakeholder surveys and recommendations on key public, private, or non-profit investments needed to digitally-enable the national seed system Present a diagram depicting a high-level vision for a national, multi-stakeholder digital architecture for the seed system Present the diagram depicting the digital architecture vision (including key systems, functions, and data assets) for comment and validation by key players in the national seed system. Suggest ways that multiple public, private, and non-profit stakeholders can coordinate their actions and investments to bring the digitally-enabled seed system vision into being, with emphasis on the role of open standards, open architectures, and good digital practice such as the Principles for Digital Development. 2 The workshop designers will also consult the following open-data actors in Nepal (particularly considering that the workshop emphasizes open standards, open architecture, and Principles for Digital Development) and consider including them in the discussion with seed system stakeholders: Kathmandu Living Labs Open Nepal Young Innovations NGO Federation of Nepal Freedom Forum Code for Nepal The workshop will be approximately one-day in length involving approximately seed system stakeholders. Task 2: Design and Help Build a Digitally-Enabled Seed Catalog 1 One key reference may be Enterprise Architecture as Strategy (Harvard Business Review Press, 2006)

7 The selected organization will work to ensure that a critical component of the national seed system, the seed catalog, is digitized in accordance with best industry practices and leveraging good digital tools and approaches. Sub-task 2.2: Draft summary brief report with review of digital seed catalog models The selected organization will evaluate digital seed catalog models from other countries or regions, including, at a minimum, the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) and any other models suggested by USAID or the NASF Project. This review will examine, at a minimum: Key system functions and features Supporting business processes Sustainability plans Software and hardware used The selected organization will produce a summary brief report outlining relative advantages and disadvantages of digital seed catalogs and the implications of this for a suitable catalog for Nepal. Sub-task 2.3 Draft summary report including key mandatory functional requirements for seed catalog The selected organization will produce a draft summary report, in close collaboration with the NASF Project, that includes recommendations of key mandatory functional requirements (and any other optional functional requirements that would be recommended) for the seed catalog, and mockups of key web screens illustrating how these requirements would be translated into a functional system. The report will evaluate functional requirements for the catalog, including, at a minimum: How the catalog will be populated Critical workflow and business processes Key mandatory functionality as well as recommended optional functionality Stakeholders roles and responsibilities (both related to functional and nonfunctional use of the digitized seed system) Registration Data structure (entities, attributes, properties and their relations) and storage Recommended technical design Access and permissions Sub-task 2.4: Recommend a detailed design and implementation plan for the seed catalog The selected organization will work to produce a final design document and presentation, in close collaboration with the NASF Project, which explains how the catalog will work and include detailed recommendations for the design and implementation of the seed catalog in sufficient detail that a separate entity would be able to execute against it. At a minimum, the design document will address: Recommended architecture including key functions, data storage, software and hardware Key risks and mitigation approaches in the rollout of the system System security 7

8 Recommended phases for implementation of the system, including core functionality and including component and system testing Recommended approaches for the ongoing operation, update, and maintenance of the system in light of the national digital seed system vision developed under Task One. Reflect industry good practices and the Principles for Digital Development ( to the extent possible. Observe open standards and make any public data generated open and available for analysis or use. Sub-task 2.5: Development ofrecommendations document to guide the procurement of a technical firm to develop the catalog The selected organization will draft a a modelterms of reference and procurement recommendations, in close collaboration with the NASF Project, to provide guidance on the procurement of a firm to build the seed catalog. The guidance document will include, but not be limited to: Language on system requirements and key competencies of the system A description of the key competencies and experience recommended for a firm A description of the necessary tasks to complete the work Task 3: Short-term technical assistance to select and provide design input on another key component of the national seed system The selected organization will work to identify and provide design input on another key product or service comprising part of the national seed system. This task will have up to 20 days leve of effort (LOE). Sub-task 3.1 Select information product or service for design and implementation planning assistance. The selected organization will build on the assessment, vision, and roadmap developed under Task One, and work in close coordination with the NASF, to select another product, service, or function of the national seed system to be a focus for deeper design assistance. Products, services, or functions to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: The Seed Balance Sheet produced by the Seed Quality Control Center The Seed Analysis and Trade Survey produced by the Seed Entrepreneurs Association Enterprise-level systems of the National Seed Company or seed distributors Any other products or services identified during the assessment Sub-task 3.2: Develop draft functional and technical design and implementation plan for another key component of the national seed system. The selected organization will draft a design and implementation plan for the selected key component of the national seed system of Nepal in sub-task 3.1 and secure concurrence from the NASF team and the USAID Mission. (The selected product, service or function is not currently expected to be implemented by 8

9 the NASF team itself. Rather the work product for this task will equip the NASF and USAID to better evaluate and engage potential implementers of the design.) To complete this task, close coordination with the NASF Project team and the provider of the information service will be necessary to: Receive a background briefing on the history; usefulness; users; challenges benefits; recent improvements; plans to enhance the target product or service digitally or functionally. Determine priority objectives to meet by digitizing the service. Gather any existing guidance and examples from elsewhere of similar services leveraging digital services effectively. Receive and review recommended documents regarding the service, including any design documents; evaluations; assessments; plans for enhancing it. The draft functional and technical design for the digitization of the information product or service will include, but not be limited to: Recommended phasing of both functional and technical features and key databases recommended for implementation; Recommend possible alternative owners and managers of the selected product or service with pros and cons of alternatives Critical functionalities, including data updates, quality controls, interfaces for users and stakeholders A modular architecture that will enable data sharing, addition of new functionalities, and interoperability with other relevant seed systems in Nepal Recommended data storage solutions Data Security Recommended phases of implementation, including ongoing operation and governance The draft design and implementation plan will be presented to the NASF and key stakeholders for validation. Task 4: Design and deliver a presentation to USAID/Nepal that summarizes lessons learned Under this activity, the selected firm will design and deliver a presentation to USAID/Nepal personnel that includes summarized lessons learned and recommendations on how to fully leverage a digitally enabled seed systems in Mission programming and continue to foster more data-driven agricultural development in Nepal. IV. Deliverables The selected firm will provide the following deliverables: Cross-cutting Activity Work plan, including a proposed timeline for implementation, of all tasks and deliverables 9

10 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Quarterly reports, to include indicators and details of technical assistance provided Presentation to USAID/Nepal personnel that includes summarized lessons learned and recommendations on how to fully leverage a digitally enabled national seed system One final report that captures a summary of lessons learned and recommendations to USAID/Nepal, NASF, and other stakeholders in the national seed system of Nepal on how to construct a digitally enabled Nepal seed system Task 1 A survey instrument for interviewing key stakeholders in the national seed system of Nepal. A Summary Report that synthesizes overall findings and high level recommendations regarding how each seed system actor could more fully leverage digital tools in their work A conceptual map detailing the current national seed system of Nepal A one-page, non-technical diagram and explanatory text depicting a digital architecture vision for the national seed system of Nepal that will illustrate key systems, functions, and data assets that must work together. A validated, multi-stakeholder architecture vision and roadmap for a digitally enabled system of Nepal. A summary report of the meetings, findings, and recommendations presented for dissemination to all stakeholders and interested parties. Task 2 A summary brief report outlining relative advantages and disadvantages of digital seed catalogs reviewed and the implications of this for a suitable catalog for Nepal. A summary work-plan for the remaining work in the task A draft summary report including recommendations of key mandatory functional requirements (and any key optional functional requirements that would be recommended) for the seed catalog, and mockups of key web screens illustrating how these requirements would be translated into a functional system A final design validated by the NASF Project with an accompanying presentation to explain how the catalog will work; recommendations regarding mandatory and optional functionality and technical features. Draft language on system requirements and key competencies that may be included in any procurement of a firm to build the digital seed catalog; a description of the key competencies and experience recommended for a firm; Input on the language describing what will be procured; summaries of any technical reviews of offering firms. Task 3 Draft technical design and implementation plan The work developed and released under these deliverables will be used for future programmatic interventions of USAID, planning to invest resources in open data. This will lead to and succeed other anticipated activities for the theory of change including: convening USAID missions for buy-in, scoping trips and demonstrating the practical implementation of open data underpinned by best practices and guidelines of the deliverables. 10

11 The table below provides an illustrative timeline for implementation. Applicants may propose their own timelines. No. Deliverable Estimated Due Date 1 Activity Work plan, including a proposed timeline for implementation of all tasks and deliverables 2 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, that captures the activity s results framework, to measure progress towards achieving its strategic objective 3 Summary Report that synthesizes findings and high level recommendations regarding how each seed system actor could more fully leverage digital tools in their work 4 Conceptual map detailing the current national seed system of Nepal 5 A one-page, non-technical diagram and explanatory text depicting a digital architecture vision for the national seed system of Nepal that will illustrate key systems, functions, and data assets that must work together 6 A summary report of the meetings, findings and recommendations presented for dissemination to all stakeholders and interested parties 7 A summary brief report outlining relative advantages and disadvantages of digital seed catalogs reviewed and the implications of this for a suitable catalog for Nepal 9 A draft summary report including recommendations of key mandatory functional requirements (and any key optional functional requirements that would be recommended) for the seed catalog, and mockups of key web screens illustrating how these requirements would be translated into a functional system 9 A final design validated by the NASF Project with an accompanying presentation to explain how the catalog will work; recommendations regarding mandatory and optional functionality and technical features. 10 Draft language on system requirements and key competencies that may be included in any procurement of a firm to build the digital seed catalog; a description of the key competencies and experience recommended for a firm; Input on the language 4 weeks after project start 4 weeks after project start 8 weeks after project start 10 weeks after project start 12 weeks after project start 14 weeks after project start 25 weeks after project start 27 weeks after project start 29 weeks after project start 31 weeks after project start 11

12 describing what will be procured; summaries of any technical reviews of offering firms. 11 Draft technical design and implementation plan 33 weeks after project start 13 Quarterly Reports, to include indicators and details of technical assistance provided, including but not limited to Task 1.3, and lessons learned to date Quarterly (4 Quarters) 14 Monthly progress calls with USAID/Nepal, NASF, and D2FTF Monthly (12 months) Location This work will be conducted over a period of 12 months in Nepal or the United States as appropriate to the task. The work will be completed through a combination of virtual and in-person technical assistance in Nepal. Local travel in Nepal may be required to field sites in Nepalgunj in Nepal. The firm that mstar contracts to implement this activity should have one team member based in Nepal. 3 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS 3.1 OFFERORS ELIGIBILITY This competition is open to any non-governmental, non-profit or for-profit entity. To be minimally eligible for funding, offerors must comply with the following conditions: Organizations must be legally registered or otherwise authorized to conduct business in their country or countries of operation. Organizations must have a DUNS number and must be registered in SAM. Organizations must submit their proposal in English. 3.2 FUNDING AND ESTIMATED PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The mechanism for funding will be a Cost-Reimbursable Subcontract with an expected ceiling of US$200, FHI 360 will issue reimbursement payment(s) based on submission and FHI 360 acceptance of invoices for allowable costs that are reasonable, allocable and necessary for performance of this activity. Once a subcontract is issued, it will include a Subcontractor Financial Report that will serve as the subcontractor s invoice. The subcontract is anticipated to commence in September 2017 and final deliverables are anticipated to be submitted in July PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE Proposals may be submitted at any time before 5:00 PM EDT on the date specified on the cover page of this RFP. Submissions received after the deadline will not be considered. 12

13 3.4 SUBMISSION METHOD FOR QUESTIONS AND PROPOSALS Submit questions and proposals electronically to: Patrick Malone and Paul Gostomski FHI 360 will not accept paper applications for this RFP. All questions and answers will be shared with all interested offerors. Technical proposals and attachments may be submitted in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format. Budgets must be submitted in Microsoft Excel format using the template provided. The subject line should read Enhancing Digitally Enabled Seed System in Nepal [Name of organization submitting proposal]. 3.5 REVIEW PROCESS Proposals will be reviewed and awarded by an evaluation panel. FHI 360 will lead and coordinate the evaluation panel. A technical evaluation committee will review all technical proposals using the Evaluation Criteria detailed in section 3.7 below. It is anticipated that the award will be made within 4-6 weeks after the submission deadline, as stated on the cover of this RFP. Final negotiations and award will be managed by FHI PROPOSAL CONTENTS Offerors will develop their proposals based on their understanding of needs and their prior institutional experience within the context provided above. Proposals must not exceed 15 pages, not including CVs and other attachments. Complete proposals must include the following sections: 1. Technical Approach The evaluation methodology must provide comprehensive details of how the offeror intends to conduct the tasks for this activity, including a preliminary methodology. In addition to the methodology, the offeror should include a proposed implementation plan and accompanying timeline for the project. While the evaluation methodology focuses exclusively on the research aspects of the project, the implementation plan should outline the offeror s approach to executing the entirety of the activity. 2. Personnel Statement The personnel statement must include: A statement demonstrating the proposed personnel s relevant skills and past experience to successfully complete this assignment. It should highlight past experience with agricultural and seed data, database design, data storage and good governance practice, web platform design, as well as experience convening trainings and working with the international agricultural data community. The personnel statement should also indicate written and oral proficiency in English. As an annex, CVs of the proposed personnel who will conduct the work (maximum 2 pages per CV). We anticipate these may require two main types of expertise, including: seed systems 13

14 specialist, and enterprise systems architect who will work collaboratively to achieve all those tasks outlined above. As an annex, a biodata form (Attachment B) for each proposed personnel who will conduct the work 3. Corporate Capabilities and Past Experience The corporate capabilities and past experience must include: A detailed explanation of the organization s previous experience with open data initiatives, particularly in the developing country context, as well as experience with electronic data collection practices, data governance, data storage and data system development. The proposed management structure for the implementation of this activity. Demonstration of adequate resources to successfully complete this assignment. Three organizational references from previous funders/investors, clients, or partners including contact information (names, company or organization, phone number and ). 4. Budget The budget must be presented in the format included as Attachment A and must contain detailed line item costs in US Dollars, or Nepalese rupee, a budget narrative, and any supporting documentation that clearly show how the budgeted amounts were calculated. When preparing their budgets and budget narrative, offeror must follow these instructions: 1. Budgets must be accompanied by a brief narrative explanation and justification for each line item. The budget narrative must include data to support actual costs and/or methodologies to support cost estimates. The budget narrative should be presented in such a way as to be easily referenced from the budget and should provide sufficient information so that FHI 360 may review a proposed budget for reasonableness. All projected costs must be in accordance with the organization s standard practices and policies. 2. Budgets must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate reasonableness and completeness. Offerors including budget information determined to be unreasonable, incomplete, unnecessary for the completion of the proposed project, or based on a methodology that is not adequately supported may be deemed unacceptable. 3. Budgets must be submitted in USD or Nepalese Rupee. 4. If the budget includes an indirect rate, offerors must attach a Negotiated Indirect Rate Cost Agreement (NICRA), or an independent auditor-certified indirect rate based upon the last 3 years of audited financial statements. If the offeror does not have a copy of this to support the indirect rate proposed, they must break out the costs and charge the costs as fixed amounts and must be shown as separate line items in the budget and charge the costs as direct expenses shown via line items in the budget. If the costs are charged as fixed amounts, in the budget narrative please explain the methodology and calculation behind the estimated fixed amounts. 5. Other Attachments 14

15 1. Certifications (Attachment C); Certifications are required by FHI 360 and USAID and must be signed by the authorized official, dated and included in the proposal. Recipients will be required to comply with the content of the certifications as part of the contractual agreement when/if funding is approved. 2. Registration certificate for the organization. 3.7 EVALUATION CRITERIA The criteria presented below have been tailored to the requirements of this RFP. A total of 100 points are possible for the complete proposal. The relative importance of each criterion is indicated by approximate weight by points. Evaluation Criteria Technical Approach Understanding of the subject matter and issues. Comprehensiveness of proposed approach and technical soundness of technical approach and reasoning why the technical approach was chosen. Implementation plan and proposed timeline are realistic and include all proposed elements of the activity. Personnel Statement Personnel proposed for this work must have a proven track record in agricultural and seed data, database design, data storage and good governance practice, web platform design, as well as experience convening trainings and working with the international agricultural data community. Personnel should also be familiar with and, ideally, have experience working with the international open data community. Proposed staff person(s) who will be responsible for implementation have the relevant skills and past experience to successfully complete the assignment, both in terms of conducting the electronic data collection, analysis and training and also in designing a comprehensive common data structure that meets of needs of stakeholders. Personnel should have excellent written and oral communication skills in English. Corporate Capabilities and Past Experience Experience and capacity of the organization(s) and adequacy of resources. The proposed management structure is reasonable and sufficient to implement this work. The organization shows past experience and credible reputation in the area of international development research and/or open data or agricultural data initiatives (networks, publications, presentations, etc. should be referenced). Budget Proposed budget represents the best value, and all costs included in it are allocable to this activity, reasonable and allowable under USAID rules and regulations. TOTAL Points 20 points 40 points 20 points 20 points 100 points 15

16 a) FHI 360 intends to evaluate offerors in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and make a contract award to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) meets the requirements of this RFP and scored the highest proposal. (b) The submitted technical information will be evaluated by a technical evaluation committee using the stated technical criteria. (c) If FHI 360 determines that discussions are necessary, FHI 360 may establish a Competitive Range composed of only the most highly rated proposals. FHI 360 may exclude an offer from the competitive range if it is so deficient as to essentially require a new technical proposal. FHI 360 may exclude an offer from the competitive range if it so unreasonably priced, in relation to more competitive offers, as to appear that there will be little or no chance of becoming competitive. FHI 360 may exclude an offer that would require extensive discussions, a complete re-write, or major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those more competitive offers. FHI 360 reserves the right to award one or more contracts under this RFP on the basis of initial offers without discussions or without establishing a competitive range. 3.8 AWARD AND NOTIFICATION OF SELECTED PROPOSALS 1. Prior to the expiration period of proposal validity, FHI 360 will notify the successful offeror who submitted the highest scoring proposal in writing by and invite it to negotiate the contract. 2. The aim will be to reach agreement on all points, and draft an initial contract by the conclusion of negotiations. 3. Negotiations will commence with a discussion of the offeror s technical proposal, schedule of activities, staffing and any suggestions you may have made to improve upon the Scope of Work. Agreement must then be reached on the final deliverables, staffing, logistics and reporting. Special attention will be paid to define clearly the inputs required from FHI 360 to ensure satisfactory implementation of the assignment. 4. Changes agreed upon will then be reflected in the financial proposal, using proposed unit rates. 5. Having selected the Subcontractor on the basis of the stated evaluation criteria, FHI 360 expects to negotiate a contract on the basis of the staff named in the proposal and, prior to contract negotiations, will require assurance that these staff will be actually available. FHI 360 will not consider substitutions during contract negotiations except in cases of unexpected delays in the starting date or incapacity of key professional staff for reasons of health. 6. The negotiations will be concluded with a review of the draft form of the contract. FHI 360 and the offeror shall finalize the contract to conclude negotiations. 7. The contract will be awarded after successful negotiations with the selected offeror. If negotiations fail, FHI 360 will invite the offeror having obtained the second highest score to contract negotiations. 8. Any selected firm will be required to complete a Financial Pre-Award Assessment in order for FHI 360 to ascertain that the organization has the capacity to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed award. As part of the Pre-Award Assessment process the firm will also be requested to submit a financial audit report from the previous fiscal year. In addition, payroll records and other financial information may be requested to support budgeted costs. 9. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of FHI 360 nor does it commit FHI 360 to pay for the costs incurred in the submission of a proposal to the RPP. Furthermore, FHI 360 reserves the right to reject any or all offers received and to negotiate separately with an offeror, if such action is considered to be in the best interest of FHI 360 s client organization, the U.S. Agency for International Development. 16

17 10. FHI 360 may evaluate offers in response to this solicitation without discussions and will award a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is scored the highest according to the stated evaluation criteria. FHI 360 reserves the right to: (a) Reject any or all offers; (b) Accept other than the lowest-price offer; and/or (c) Waive informalities or minor irregularities in offers received. 4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Offerors are responsible for review of the terms and conditions described below and in the award budget template attached. If relevant, particular attention should be paid to clauses regarding USAID geographic code, marking and branding requirements and equipment and commodity purchases. 4.1 SOURCE OF FUNDING AND GEOGRAPHIC CODE Any award issued under this RFP will be financed by USAID funding and will be subject to U.S. Government and USAID regulations. The authorized USAID geographic code for this RFP and any resulting award is Code 937. All commodities and services supplied under any subcontract resulting from this RFP must meet this geographic code in accordance with the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 22 CFR WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS Offerors may withdraw proposals by written notice via received at any time before award. 4.3 RIGHT TO SELECT/REJECT FHI 360 reserves the right to select and negotiate with those firms/individuals it determines, in its sole discretion, to be qualified for competitive proposals and to terminate negotiations without incurring any liability. FHI 360 also reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received without explanation. 4.4 JOINT VENTURES If the offeror does not have all the expertise for the assignment, they may associate with another firm to enable a full range of expertise to be presented. The request for a joint venture must be presented at the time of the initial proposal and must be accompanied with full details of the proposed association. 4.5 DISCLAIMER 1. Offerors will not be reimbursed for the cost incurred in preparation and submission of a proposal. All preparation and submission costs are at the offeror s expense 2. This RFP represents only a definition of requirements. It is merely an invitation for submission of proposals and does not legally obligate FHI 360 to accept any of the submitted proposals in whole or in part, nor is FHI 360 obligated to select the lowest priced proposal. 3. FHI 360 reserves the right to negotiate with any or all firms, both with respect to price, cost and/or scope of services. 4. FHI 360 reserves the right to independently negotiate with any offeror, or to make an award without conducting discussion based solely on the written proposals if it decides it is in its best interest to do so. FHI 360 reserves the right to fund any or none of the proposals received. 5. FHI 360 reserves the right to disqualify any offer based on offeror failure to follow solicitation instructions. 17

18 6. FHI 360 may choose to award only part of the activities in the solicitation, or issue multiple award based on the solicitation activities. 7. FHI 360 reserves the right to waive minor proposal deficiencies that can be corrected prior to award determination to promote competition 8. FHI 360 reserves the right to check applicant s donor reference 4.6 OFFER VERIFICATION FHI 360 may contact offerors to confirm contact person, address, bid amount and to confirm that the bid was submitted for this solicitation. 4.7 FALSE STATEMENTS IN OFFER Offerors must provide full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation and its attachments. Failure to submit correct, complete and accurate information shall lead to automatic disqualification. 4.8 CONFLICT OF INTEREST Offerors must provide disclosure of any past, present or future relationships with any parties associated with the issuance, review or management of this solicitation and anticipated award. Failure to provide full and open disclosure may result in FHI 360 having to re-evaluate selection of a potential offeror. 4.9 RESERVED RIGHTS All RFP responses become the property of FHI 360 and FHI 360 reserves the right in its sole discretion to: o Disqualify any offer based on offeror failure to follow solicitation instructions; o Waive any deviations by offerors from the requirements of this solicitation that in FHI 360's opinion are considered not to be material defects requiring rejection or disqualification; or where such a waiver will promote increased competition; o Extend the time for submission of all RFP responses after notification to all offerors; o Terminate or modify the RFP process at any time and re-issue the RFP to whomever FHI 360 deems appropriate; o Issue an award based on the initial evaluation of offers without discussion; o Award only part of the activities in the solicitation or issue multiple awards based on solicitation activities GOVERNING LAW AND LANGUAGE This solicitation and any resulting contract shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the U.S. Government. The English language version of this solicitation and any resulting contract shall govern, and all notices pursuant to the provisions of this solicitation and any resulting contract shall be in English CERTIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION (a) The offeror certifies that (1) The prices in this offer have been arrived at independently, without, for the purpose of restricting competition, any consultation, communication, or agreement with any other offeror, including but not limited to subsidiaries or other entities in which offeror has any ownership or other interests, or any 18

19 competitor relating to (i) those prices, (ii) the intention to submit an offer, or (iii) the methods or factors used to calculate the prices offered; (2) The prices in this offer have not been and will not be knowingly disclosed by the offeror, directly or indirectly, to any other offeror, including but not limited to subsidiaries or other entities in which offeror has any ownership or other interests, or any competitor before bid opening (in the case of a sealed bid solicitation) or contract award (in the case of a negotiated or competitive solicitation) unless otherwise required by law; and (3) No attempt has been made or will be made by the offeror to induce any other concern or individual to submit or not to submit an offer for the purpose of restricting competition or influencing the competitive environment. (b) Each signature on the offer is considered to be a certification by the signatory that the signatory (1) Is the person in the offeror's organization responsible for determining the prices being offered in this bid or proposal, and that the signatory has not participated and will not participate in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above; or (2) (i) Has been authorized, in writing, to act as agent for the principals of the offeror in certifying that those principals have not participated, and will not participate in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above; (ii) As an authorized agent, does certify that the principals of the offeror have not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above; and (iii) As an agent, has not personally participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above. (c) Offeror understands and agrees that (1) Violation of this certification will result in immediate disqualification from this solicitation without recourse and may result in disqualification from future solicitations; and (2) Discovery of any violation after award to the offeror will result in the termination of the award for default. 5 ATTACHMENTS The following documents are considered to be part of this RFP: A) Budget Template B) FHI 360 Biodata Form C) Certifications D) Funding Sponsor Flow-Down Terms and Conditions 19