CONTRACT TYPES AND SERVICES - cisjordan.org Capacit… · Web viewUSAID Civic Initiatives Support Program. USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL,

USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program

Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 031/2017:

Evaluation Support to Conduct the Legacy Assessment of the USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program's Civil

Society Capacity Development Interventions

Issue Date: September 17, 2017Solicitation Workshop: September 24, 2017 at 10:00 amDue Date for Questions: September 26, 2017 at 4:00 PMResponses to Questions: September 28, 2017 by 4:00 PM

Proposal Submission Deadline: October 12, 2017 by noon (Amman time)

SummaryThe USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program (USAID CIS) is soliciting proposals to issue a Fixed-Price Subcontract for Evaluation Support to Conduct the Legacy Assessments of its civil society capacity development interventions. The successful offeror will carry out a series of tasks to assess the extent to which USAID CIS organizational capacity development contributed to strengthened capacity and improved performance of a selection of CSOs that received USAID CIS assistance. This subcontract will be divided into three Sub-Tasks:

Sub-Task #1: Internal Strengthening for Change (ISC) Sub-Task #2: Grant Recipients of Capacity Support (Grantees) Sub-Task #3: Societies Empowerment Fund (SEF)

The division of this work into three Sub-Tasks accommodates the differing approach, technical nature and intensity of the three capacity development interventions under this evaluation and facilitates customization of the evaluation design to each.

Prospective offerors are expected to develop constructive and effective proposals to implement the initiative described in Section C.

EligibilityOfferors must meet the following eligibility requirements to apply:

Must be registered as a legal entity with headquarters based in Jordan Must have been in operation for at least one year prior to applying

Proposals must be received no later than 12:00 pm on the closing date indicated above and must be submitted with the name and address of the offeror and RFP number. Clarifications concerning this RFP should be submitted via email by the date and time specified above to [email protected].

This RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of USAID CIS nor does it commit USAID CIS to pay for costs incurred in submission of a proposal. Further, USAID CIS reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received, and to negotiate separately with an offeror, if such action is considered to be in the best interest of USAID CIS.

The contents of this Request for Proposal are the responsibility of FHI 360and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 1

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents

SECTION A. AWARD FORM (PROVIDED UPON AWARD)SECTION B. SUPPLIES OR SERVICES & PRICES OR COSTB.1. PURPOSEB.2. CONTRACT TYPES & SERVICESB.3. CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCEB.4. MAXIMUM CONTRACT PRICEB.5. BUDGETSECTION C. DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORKC.1. OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY

a. Purposeb. Analytic Frameworkc. Sub-Task Descriptionsd. Key Evaluation Questionse. Elements of an Approachf. Gender-Responsive and Participatory Methodologyg. Key Activitiesh. Timeline

C.2. CONTEXTa. CSOs in Jordanb. USAID Policy and Guidancec. USAID Dimensions of Organizational Sustainabilityd. USAID/Jordan Strategic Goals

C.3. USAID CIS CAPACITY DEVELOPMENTa. USAID CIS Results Framework b. Capacity Needs and Prioritiesc. Principlesd. Institutional Capacity Assessmentse. Capacity and Performancef. Capacity Development Mechanismsg. Capacity Development Servicesh. Measures of Change

C.4. PERSONNELa. Evaluation Team Competenciesb. Evaluation Team Positions

C.5. ETHICSa. Code of Conductb. Conflict of Interest

SECTION D. PACKAGING & MARKINGD.1 BRANDING POLICY

SECTION E. INSPECTION & ACCEPTANCE

SECTION F. DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCEF.1. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCEF.2. PLACE OF PERFORMANCEF.3. ACTIVITY REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS

a. Deliverablesb. Meetings

F.4. LANGUAGE OF DELIVERABLES AND BRANDING REQUIREMENTSF.5. SUBMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTATION TO USAID

DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSEF.6. SUBMISSION OF DATASETS TO USAID DECSECTION G. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATAG.1. TECHNICAL MONITOR AND CONTRACTING OFFICERG.2. TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIP WITH FHI 360USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 2

G.3. CONTRACTOR'S PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACTG.4. ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVALG.5. PAYING OFFICEG.6. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATAG.7. CONTRACTOR'S PAYMENT ADDRESSSECTION H. SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTSH.1. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

a. Executive Order 13224 on Terrorist Financingb. Terms and Conditionsc. Contract Mechanismd. Withdrawals of Proposalse. Right to Select/Rejectf. Client Prior Approvalg. Disclaimerh. Request for Subcontract Proposal Firm Guaranteei. False Statements in Offerj. Conflict of Interestk. Reserved Rights

H.2. AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODEH.3. LOGISTIC SUPPORTH.4. LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTSH.5. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTSH.6. USAID DISABILITY POLICYSECTION I. FHI 360 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND FUNDER FLOW DOWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS

SECTION J. LIST OF ATTACHMENTSSECTION K. REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTSL. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORSL.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONSL.2. DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

a. Due Date for Questionsb. Submission of Offerc. Award Timeline

L.3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSALa. Technical Proposalb. Cost Proposal

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARDM.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

a. Number of Awardsb. RFP Instructionsc. Offer Acceptability

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIAM.3. SOURCE SELECTIONM.4. DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGEAttachmentsAttachment 1: Glossary of Terms and AcronymsAttachment 2: Reference LibraryAttachment 3: Evaluation Design MatrixAttachment 4: Key Evaluation Activities Attachment 5: USAID CIS Results FrameworkAttachment 6: USAID CIS Capacity Assessment ToolsAttachment 7: Capacity Development Program Interventions (Selected Descriptions)Attachment 8: Cost Proposal Fixed-Price TemplateAttachment 9: USAID CIS Branding and Marking Plan


SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES & PRICES OR COST

B.1 PURPOSE

The purpose for this solicitation is to procure the services of a Subcontractor to independently assess the extent to which USAID CIS organizational capacity development contributed to strengthened capacity and improved performance of participating CSOs.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPES AND SERVICES

FHI 360 anticipates awarding a Firm Fixed Price contract. The Contractor must be able to perform all services identified in Section C.B.3 CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

FHI 360 anticipates an award with a period of performance from December 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018. B.4 MAXIMUM CONTRACT PRICE

This is Firm Fixed price contract with a ceiling not to exceed JOD 76,000.

B.5 BUDGET

This is a Fixed Price subcontract. The Firm Fixed Price for this contract is JOD 76,000. The Contractor will not be reimbursed for any amount that exceeds this amount.

Subcontractor is required to and agrees to complete all activities specified in Section C, Scope of Work, for the fixed price of indicated above. The currency of payment is Jordanian Dinars. The price is not subject to adjustment unless authorized in a written modification to this subcontract and executed by the FHI 360 Contracting Officer. Subcontractor will invoice FHI 360 upon the satisfactory completion of each payment milestone specified in the Payment Schedule included in the final subcontract. If any of the services performed do not satisfy the subcontract requirements, Subcontractor shall perform the services to meet the requirements at no additional cost to FHI 360.

[END OF SECTION B]


SECTION C. DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1. OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY

The USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program (USAID CIS) aims at cultivating a strong and vibrant civil society in Jordan through supporting a broad range of civic initiatives and civil society organizations (CSOs). USAID CIS is a five-year program (2013-18) implemented by FHI 360, a nonprofit human development organization dedicated to improving lives in lasting ways by advancing integrated, locally driven solutions.

This Statement of Work (SOW) is designed to procure evaluative services for one Subcontract comprised of three sub-tasks, hereinafter “the Activity.” The Activity entails evaluation of the extent to which USAID CIS organizational capacity development contributed to strengthened capacity and improved performance of a selection of civil society organizations (CSOs) that received USAID CIS assistance. The Activity will result in strategic insight, learning and recommendations to enrich current and future programming undertaken by the relevant CSOs and will contribute essential content for the USAID CIS final program report in 2018. Moreover, USAID CIS will use the final results of data and analysis produced under this Subcontract to support an aggregate review of capacity development across the three sub-tasks. (See Attachment 1: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms for additional detail on terminology used in this RFP.)

a. Purpose

The purpose of this Subcontract is to independently assess the extent to which USAID CIS organizational capacity development contributed to strengthened capacity and improved performance of participating CSOs. Focusing on relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability, the specific objectives are to:

1. Assess the relevance and effectiveness of the USAID CIS capacity development approach and services

2. Assess changes in CSO capacity and the extent to which systems were put in place and made functional

3. Assess the extent to which development of CSO capacity contributed to improved performance

4. Make recommendations to contribute to future capacity development strategies and programming.

This RFP provides formal guidance for achieving these aims.

The primary audience includes the respective grantees, USAID/Jordan contract and technical specialists, and USAID CIS program management, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and project staff. The period of review is for activities from April 2014 through November 2017. It is important to note that significant USAID CIS capacity development assistance is still in process and will continue beyond the performance period of the evaluation, posing a limitation to the scope of the evaluation of contribution to change.

Building on this Subcontract, USAID CIS will utilize the collective data and analysis to conduct an aggregate review of capacity development. Therefore, the evaluator shall apply a consistent methodology and analytic approach across execution of all Sub-Tasks.

b. Analytic Framework


As described throughout Section C, there are key technical resources that are important to the meaningful and comprehensive evaluation of organizational capacity development under the USAID CIS program. These shall be taken into account in carrying out the design and implementation of this Subcontract and component Sub-Tasks. Key resources include but are not limited to those listed in Table 1: Analytic Framework Resources.

Table 1: Analytic Framework ResourcesElement Secti

on Contextual variables that shape Jordan civil society activity C.2.a USAID capacity development principles and recommendations C.2.b USAID dimensions of CSO sustainability C.2.c USAID/Jordan strategic goals C.2.d USAID CIS results framework C.3.a USAID CIS capacity development principles C.3.c USAID CIS capacity domains C.3.e HRBA principles and gender dimensions C.3.e USAID CIS Program Mid-Term Performance Evaluation and USAID CIS

responsesC.3.h

The evaluator shall articulate a final analytic framework during Subcontract design.

c. Sub-Task Descriptions

This Subcontract is divided into three Sub-Tasks:

Sub-Task #1: Internal Strengthening for Change (ISC) Sub-Task #2: Grant Recipients of Capacity Support Sub-Task #3: Societies Empowerment Fund (SEF)

The division of this evaluation work into three Sub-Tasks accommodates the differing approach, technical nature and intensity of the three capacity development interventions under this evaluation and facilitates customization of the evaluation design to each.

Common FeaturesAll organizations included in the Sub-Tasks have taken part in at least one institutional assessment (either an Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool [ICAT] or an Institutional Development Assessment [IDA]).

All Sub-Tasks share the common aim to examine the extent to which organizations have experienced change in organizational capacities, cross-cutting capacities and performance through the lens of participation in USAID CIS capacity development interventions. In addition, all involve analyzing four core competencies: organizational governance, strategic planning, M&E and financial management/compliance. (See Section C.3.e).

Sub-Tasks will share the same evaluation design, main evaluation questions, key activities and deliverables, although the design may be lightly customized to each Sub-Task. Each shall utilize the analytic framework (outlined in Section C.1.b) once finalized and approved. Each is expected to provide the respective grantees, USAID CIS and USAID/Jordan with in-depth, evidence-based analysis, including specific findings, conclusions and actionable recommendations.


As part of the overall evaluation design, the evaluator shall develop a set of master tools to ensure consistency of methods and process between Sub-Tasks #1, #2 and #3. Master tools shall include an evaluation design matrix and a set of interview/discussion guides.

Sub-Task #1: Internal Strengthening for Change (ISC)Description: Sub-Task #1 commissions the evaluation of a sample of CSOs that participated in ISC, an intensive, multi-phase capacity development intervention that was implemented in two phases (ISC I and ISC II). ISC provides a mechanism for community-based organizations (CBOs) to understand and apply the principles of effective management and good governance. Capacity building is provided to these CBOs both directly by USAID CIS staff, and through intermediary support organizations (ISOs).

Sampling: This Sub-Task shall focus on the impact achieved within the core group of the 64 organizations that developed strategic plans under ISC I, including the subset of 19 organizations that also took part in ISC II capacity development activities. Of the 64 organizations, 45 participated in one post-IDA assessment and 19 participated in two post-IDAs assessments. Findings, conclusions and recommendations for the 45 non-grantees and 19 grantees shall be presented separately in the evaluation report.

Activities and Deliverables: The evaluator shall customize the master evaluation design matrix and interview/discussion guides produced during the evaluation design phase. In addition, the evaluator shall undertake all other activities outlined in Section C.1.g and produce all deliverables outlined in Section F.3.a.

Intervention Summary: ISC I was implemented from April 2014-June 2016. ISC II is in process and runs from August 2016-March 2018.

Implemented through subcontractors Al Thoria Center, Jordan River Foundation (JRF) and Noor Al Hussein Foundation (NHF), ISC I engaged a total of 917 CBOs across all 12 governorates in capacity development activities, with participation disaggregated as follows:

Phase 1: Orientation Workshops on the Societies Start-up Toolkit – 917 CBOs participated from all 12 governorates

Phase 2: Implementing Institutional Development Assessments (IDAs) and Institutional Improvement Planning – 124 of 917 completed IDAs and developed improvement plans

Phase 3: Training and Mentoring on Strategic Planning – 46 of 124 completed strategic plans with an additional 18 to be completed by the end of August 2016

Phase 4: Organizational Development Mentoring – 23 of 64 requested additional follow-on support

Throughout the implementation of ISC I, USAID CIS invested heavily in its subcontractors, delivering training and mentoring to ISO staff and consultants involved in the program to ensure high-quality performance on behalf of USAID CIS. The initial ISC design originally included three phases, but based on an in-house assessment of the toolkit trainings in 2015, USAID CIS and its subcontractors modified the ISC program to respond to CBO demand and added a fourth phase comprised of mentoring on organizational development topics, building on the Societies Start-up Toolkit training and resources.

Overall, the ISC program introduced the concepts of good governance and effective CBO management to a new pool of CBOs working at the governorate


level (less than three years old at the time of ISC competition). USAID and USAID CIS took the decision to design and implement a second phase of the program based on progress made by ISO subcontractors in training and mentoring CBOs, coupled with the observed commitment of CBOs that continued onto the organizational development mentoring phase.

Implementing ISC II provided an opportunity for further investments to develop ISO capacity to manage grants per USAID’s rules and regulations, while simultaneously extending USAID support for CBOs at the tipping point of organizational development at the local level. ISC II supported 19 ISC I graduates with grants up to 10K Jordanian dinar (JOD) to implement projects based on their developed strategic plans, as well as supported a repeat of organizational capacity assessments utilizing the IDA, followed by training and mentoring on five topics; Procurement, M&E Basics, Good Governance, Role of Civil Society in Advancing Change, and Introduction to Advocacy.

Sub-Task #2: Grant Recipients of Capacity Support (Grantees)Description: Sub-Task #2 commissions the evaluation of institutional change of CSO grantees that attended USAID CIS short courses and/or received USAID CIS budget support to self-manage capacity development activities (see Section C.3).

Sampling: Out of all organizations that completed an institutional assessment (ICAT or IDA, the evaluation sample will be randomly drawn from 71 CSOs that attended three or more courses from the combined curriculum of USAID CIS open and direct courses (see Section A.3.f for information on the USAID CIS curricula for open and direct courses). (Note: Two of these organizations participated in the ISF program and shall be included in the sample regardless of number of courses taken. These organizations were recipients of significant USAID CIS funding for capacity support under ISF and thus should be included in this Sub-Task. However, their capacity priorities did not necessarily include short courses.)


Intervention Summary: FHI 360 provided a range of capacity development support from 2014-2017 to enhance the effectiveness of its grantees (see Section C.3.g for description of USAID CIS capacity development activities). Technical areas covered included ICAT and project-level assessments; financial and grant management; monitoring and evaluation systems and practices; networking, thematic and tactical lessons-learned sessions. Where appropriate, FHI 360 also encouraged grantees to participate in off-the-shelf “open courses”—with enrollment open to grantees as well as non-grantees—on similar topics to reinforce learning and application.

In addition, grantees were supported financially to develop their institutional capacities. Most were allocated approximately 10% of their grant budget for capacity building and created a capacity development plan and priorities based on grantee-identified priorities and/or the results of the type of assessment conducted (ICAT or IDA). In addition, a smaller pool of organizations was supported with grants of up to JOD 15K under the Institutional Strengthening Fund (ISF) in 2014 and 2015.

Sub-Task #3: Societies Empowerment Fund (SEF)


Description: Sub-Task #3 commissions the evaluation of five CSO grantees that participated in the SEF, an intensive, multi-phase capacity development intervention. SEF is being implemented through two phases.

Sampling: All five CSO grantees that completed participation in SEF shall be included in the evaluation.


Intervention Summary: SEF phases I and II overlap, with Phase I under implementation from July 2016 – November 2017 and SEF Phase II from June 2017 – March 2018.

The SEF aims to transform CSOs by contributing to their sustainability, growth and ability to achieve their missions efficiently and effectively over a two-year period. Participating CSOs were provided with the opportunity to; (1) assess their programmatic impact and organizational capacities, (2) develop their strategic direction, (3) build their institutional and technical capacities, and eventually (4) receive financial support for core funding as well as to implement and improve their mission-driven programs.

This two-phased program allows organizations to reflect on their current programs and capacities, devote time and effort for development, and receive some core funding to support their ongoing programs. Unlike project-based support, this grant contributes to the CSO’s sustainability because it allows them to analyze, assess, reflect on their work; define strategies and priorities for change; and enhance their systems. All of this will contribute to the ultimate goal of this program: to build strong, capable, organizations in their respective sectors.

Two distinguishing factors of the SEF program are:

Impact Assessment of the CSO’s Past and Current Programs : Few CSOs have the resources or expertise to assess the impact of their previous work with or on behalf of their beneficiaries. FHI 360 worked with the grantee to design the research scope of an impact assessment and dedicated in-house and external M&E resources to conducting a comprehensive impact assessment on behalf of the grantee. The results of this are feeding into the grantee’s strategic planning process, improvement plan and implementation during the second phase of the award.

Focus on Good Governance : The SEF is working with grantees to engage board members in supporting organizational change and ensuring good governance policies and practices, as organizational development and sustainability is reliant on good governance and a committed board. Note: 2 out of the 5 organizations did not receive technical assistance in good governance as they are already enrolled in a similar intervention implemented by the USAID Local Enterprise Support Program.

In addition, organizations will enhance the quality of their organizational management and internal systems, expand their programmatic and service delivery, and integrate cross-cutting themes, such as gender equality and


inclusion and the human rights-based approach, into organizational policy, programs and overall operations as applicable.

d. Key Evaluation Questions

With input from USAID CIS as well as JRF and NHF (two ISOs that provided capacity development services for the ISC intervention), the evaluator will refine and finalize key questions and sub-questions during the design phase of the evaluation. In discussion guides and in practice, questions and sub-questions shall integrate a human rights-based and a gendered approach in probing perspectives, experiences and results (see Section C.1.f and also see Attachment 2: Reference Library for Gender Quality in Project Design: Guiding Questions).

Relevance1. To what extent were USAID CIS capacity development interventions and

services relevant to the needs of participating CSOs? 2. Were there any other factors that should have been taken into account

when designing the capacity development interventions/programs?3. To what extent was change evident in the ability of participating CSOs to

engage stakeholders and promote and apply learning?

Efficiency4. To what extent was change evident in the ability of participating CSOs to

design, plan, budget, track and improve delivery of programs?

Effectiveness5. What USAID CIS capacity development interventions and tools produced

expected results and why? What produced the best results and why? Were there any unintended results (and why)?

6. To what extent did CSOs experience change in capacity and performance in relation to participation in USAID CIS? To what extent was change evident in the ability of participating CSOs to achieve results?

7. To what extent were participating CBOs better positioned to achieve their organizational goals and objectives in the future?

8. Sub-Task #3 only: In SEF grantees’ programming, to what extent and how did they respond to the participatory strategic planning process with stakeholders and to the findings of the external evaluations conducted under SEF?

Sustainability9. What is the likelihood that program benefits will be maintained after the

close of USAID CIS? Why and why not?10.To what extent was change evident in the ability of participating CSOs to

survive and thrive over time, with improvement in overall level of development and viability?

e. Elements of an Approach

These elements will inform the methodology, shaped to specific Sub-Tasks and CSO samples:

Desk review of project design and award documentation; M&E reports and statistics; project publications; stakeholder information; and literature on context, strategy, policy, technical and other frameworks

Field visits to observe project sites and activities in locations around Jordan

Interviews with key stakeholders and other informantsUSAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 10

Focus groups with key stakeholders from the same target population Other tools , such as a surveys or questionnaires to probe relevant aspects

of one or a combination of Sub-Tasks

During the design phase of each Sub-Task, the evaluator shall finalize these elements, setting out a detailed methodology in consultation with the USAID CIS Technical Monitor and a selection of grantees. The design shall be documented in each Sub-Task inception report, along with an evaluation design matrix1 to guide the planning and organization of data collection, analysis and reporting (see Attachment 3: Evaluation Design Matrix).

USAID CIS ResponsibilitiesUSAID CIS will provide the evaluator with USAID CIS program background information as well as grant-specific project design, M&E, stakeholder and other documentation. In addition, USAID CIS will provide an initial library of relevant literature (in soft copy) that has been compiled related to this RFP (see Attachment 2: Reference Library). The evaluator is ultimately responsible to identify and obtain relevant literature for each Sub-Task purpose.

f. Gender-Responsive and Participatory Methodology

The evaluator shall apply a gender-responsive, inclusive and participatory approach to the Activity. In addition to modeling core principles and practices, this approach shall provide a valuable experiential learning opportunity for grantee staff, board members and other key stakeholders.

Throughout evaluation preparation, design and implementation, the evaluator shall integrate gender considerations, including in selecting the team; refining the questions; developing and applying the methodology, protocols and tools; analyzing and interpreting the data; and developing presentations and reports that consider how and by whom the documents and knowledge can be best utilized. Resources and guidance are available from USAID, FHI 360, and USAID CIS, among others2.

In line with gender responsiveness, USAID CIS desires an approach to the Sub-Tasks that allows maximum participation of diverse CSOs, diverse staff and board members, and other stakeholders. For a recommended tool, see Attachment 2: Reference Library for Gender-Responsive Evaluation Checklist.

g. Key Activities

The evaluator shall carry out the following activities for each Sub-Task, unless otherwise indicated (for a detailed description, see Attachment 4: Key Evaluation Activities).

a. Design Phase1 For further information on this tool, see Technical Note: Evaluation Matrix at <http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp283617.pdf>.2 These include USAID’s Gender-Sensitive Evaluation: Best and Promising Practices in Engendering Evaluation, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K43P.pdf; the USAID Toolkit for Monitoring and Evaluating Gender-Based Violence Interventions along the Relief to Development Continuum, <https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/Toolkit%20Master%20(FINAL%20MAY%209).pdf>; FHI 360 Gender Integration Framework, https://www.fhi360.org/resource/gender-integration-framework-how-integrate-gender-every-aspect-our-work; and “Appendix 7: Evaluation Preparation Checklist of the USAID CIS End of Project (EOP) Evaluation: Planning and Procuring Workshop; and USAID CIS Gender Sensitization of Research Guide, finalized by Hala Ghosheh.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 11

https://www.fhi360.org/resource/gender-integration-framework-how-integrate-gender-every-aspect-our-work

https://www.fhi360.org/resource/gender-integration-framework-how-integrate-gender-every-aspect-our-work

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/Toolkit%20Master%20(FINAL%20MAY%209).pdf

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/Toolkit%20Master%20(FINAL%20MAY%209).pdf

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K43P.pdf

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp283617.pdf

1. Conduct desk review. 2. Hold Planning Meetings with USAID CIS evaluation team to discuss

design, timeline and data collection plan. 3. Design evaluation, and produce draft and final inception reports.

b. Data Collection Phase4. Hire data collectors. 5. Train staff. 6. Prepare for field data collection. 7. Conduct data collection. 8. Manage data entry. 9. Clean, organize and submit data sets.

c. Data Analysis Phase10.Analyze collected data. 11.Present initial findings, conclusions and recommendations.

d. Reporting Phase12.Produce draft and final reports. 13.Clean and submit final data.

h. Timeline

The overall estimated period of performance is December 1, 2017-April 30, 2018. The illustrative period of performance for each Sub-Task is detailed in Table 2:Illustrative Period of Performance.

Table 2: Illustrative Period of PerformanceTasks M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Subcontract Administration

Planning w/USAID CIS and design of master tools

Monthly Meeting

Monthly Meeting

Monthly Meeting

Monthly Meeting

Sub-Task #1: ISC Evaluation Design

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Reporting

Sub-Task #2: Recipient Grantees

Evaluation Design

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Reporting

Sub-Task #3: SEF Evaluation Design

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Reporting

In the technical proposal, Offerors shall propose a work plan that maximizes efficiency of time and costs to carry out the work and specifies proposed due dates for deliverables within the Activity’s performance period. See Section F.3 for a list of reports and deliverables for each Sub-Task.

C.2. CONTEXT

In this section, background information is provided on the civil society context in Jordan and on the USAID CIS capacity building programming. This background is intended to inform understanding and contribute to the development of a strong analytic framework for the design and implementation of this Activity. Also see Attachment 1: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms as well as Attachment 2: Reference Library for the Civil Society Assessment Report (CSA) of May 2016 and The 2014/2015 Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index for the Middle East and North Africa (Index) (see Jordan chapter, pgs. 32-40).USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 12

a. CSOs in Jordan

Civil society in Jordan is playing a growing role in the country’s governance and development. CSOs are organizations that individually or collectively engage in civic action to identify and address issues of public concern. In Jordan, more than 6,000 CSOs are operating, including a mix of mid- to national-level non-governmental organizations and societies to small, primarily volunteer-run community-based organizations (CBOs). The legal status of these vary from charities or societies to not-for-profit or for-profit companies3.

Jordanian CSOs have steadily increased their influence and overall impact on Jordan's development by activating citizen participation, meeting needs and shaping policy; as well as providing diverse services to the population. Along with this increase in scope and scale of activism, CSO numbers have exponentially expanded. In the last ten years, the number of registered CSOs tripled.

A recent assessment of civil society in Jordan identified many contextual factors that shape civil society activity. These include a restrictive enabling environment (laws and foreign funding approvals); the regional crisis; Syrian refugee crisis; pervasive distrust of civil society prevailing in many government circles; critical role of discretionary power, personal relationships, and political access; the extent to which thematic focus and capacity of CSOs can enable support to or complement government action; and the locale (Amman or governorate level) where work is undertaken (CSA, pg. 20-22).

Surveyed CSOs self-assessed civil society’s contributions as limited to insignificant. They generally agreed that service delivery “suffers from several flaws: the quality of the services offered often is low and the range of beneficiaries limited; services do not necessarily match the primary needs of recipients, in part because CSOs rarely conduct needs assessments; and civil society actors have failed to prioritize improving accessibility to the services they provide, the quality of these services, and how to reach out to the most vulnerable populations.” (CSA, pg. 8)

CSOs also perceived assistance as “off-the-shelf, repetitious and unimaginative training and other ‘capacity-building’ activities that have emphasized form and process over substance and outcome; have paid insufficient attention to organizational strengthening, as opposed to training individuals; and have been insufficiently geared to the specific profiles, strengths and weaknesses” of organizations, with “insufficient attention to the serious governance issues that continue to plague the sector, despite years of generous donor funding for ‘capacity building.’” Donor unwillingness to cover operational costs, long-term investment in staff development, and the capacity to undertake meaningful research were described as major impediments to actual capacity-building. (CSA, pg. 9).

b. USAID Policy and Guidance

3 CSOs are regulated as follows: NGOs/CBOs are subject to Law on Societies No. 51 for the year 2008 and its amendments (known as well as law 22 of 2009) while not-for-profit companies (NPCs) and for-profit companies are subject to the Companies Act No. 22 for the year 2007 and its amendments, as well as their respective regulations and directives. Certain CSOs are registered under separate laws based on royal decrees and parliamentary endorsement. More information can be found at www.societies.gov.jo.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 13

http://www.societies.gov.jo/

USAID provides valuable global guidance on the implementation and measurement of capacity development (see Attachment 2: Reference Library for Local Capacity Development: Suggested Approaches (LCD). This includes seven grounding principles to take into account (LCD, pgs. 2-5):

1. Capacity, at organizational level, cannot be understood without reference to the wider system that surrounds anyorganization.

2. Capacity involves complexity.3. Interrelationships are central to performance.4. Capacity development should be designed to achieve performance

improvement and yield change across a local system.5. Capacity development should invest in adaptive functions that help an

organization thrive over time.6. Local ownership underpins changes in capacity.7. Capacity development takes time.

USAID also highlights several contextual dimensions that are particularly important to consider when developing organizational capacity: Enabling environment, networks/ associations and sector relationships, advocacy and representation, and capacity development markets (LCD, pgs. 9-10).

These considerations inform USAID’s perspective on measuring capacity development to enable more effective learning from and accountability of capacity development programming (see Attachment 2: Reference Library for Organizational Capacity Development Monitoring) (OCDM). USAID makes five recommendations (OCDM, pgs. 4-7), with the first and second recommendations stipulated as requirements under the agency’s monitoring guidance:

1. Emphasize organizational performance : In defining measures for organizational strengthening, performance measures are the most appropriate area of emphasis – generally with performance expectations set jointly with the assisted organization(s). Measurement should be centered on organizational performance.

2. Measure holistically, across multiple domains : Performance should be measured across multiple domains, encompassing both the organization’s performance in achieving targeted results and the organization’s performance in learning, adapting, and sustaining itself over time to reflect capacity development investments in both short-term and long-term aspects of performance.

3. Measure at multiple levels : An organization’s performance depends on its fit in a wider local system of actors, and its interrelationships with them. Therefore, measurements at both organizational and local system levels must be made in order to capture the value of performance change.

4. Measure contribution with rigor : Organizational performance change is pursued in order to affect wider, systemic changes. However, attribution for change is unlikely to be provable, in turn requiring the need to trace the credible contribution from organizational to system change with rigor.

5. Attend to unpredicted and alternate pathways of change : Some ways in which organizational capacity development will affect future performance cannot be anticipated at the start. Incorporate at least one method of perceiving unpredicted changes in performance and of validating the pathway of change where predicted changes in performance occur.


Elaborating on the fifth recommendation, USAID emphasizes the importance of recognizing blind spots in measuring capacity development and taking care to track a full range of outcomes, causal factors, and pathways of contribution (OCDM, pg. 7):

Even when performance change is measured where one has supported capacity development, one must gather input to validate that outside support contributed to that performance change. This entails some process tracing or other ways of looking backwards at how capacity development support was understood to yield performance change, including multiple perspectives on the same question. And since some performance change is likely in areas where it was not predicted, efforts to understand an outside contribution to performance change should include effort to examine the pathways through which change happened and to look at contributions to unpredicted performance change.

c. USAID Dimensions of Organizational Sustainability

Globally, USAID regularly analyzes CSO sustainability through the lens of seven interrelated dimensions: legal environment, organizational capacity, financial viability, advocacy, service provision, infrastructure, and public image (Index, pgs. 84-88).

Legal Environment: For a CSO sector to be sustainable, the legal and regulatory environment should support the needs of CSOs. It should facilitate new entrants, help prevent governmental interference, and give CSOs the necessary legal basis to engage in appropriate fundraising activities and legitimate income-producing ventures. Factors shaping the legal environment include the ease of registration; legal rights and conditions regulating CSOs; and the degree to which laws and regulations regarding taxation, procurement, and other issues benefit or deter CSOs' effectiveness and viability. The extent to which government officials, CSO representatives, and private lawyers have the legal knowledge and experience to work within and improve the legal and regulatory environment for CSOs is also examined.

Organizational Capacity: A sustainable CSO sector will contain a critical mass of CSOs that are transparently governed and publicly accountable, capably managed, and that exhibit essential organizational skills. The organizational capacity dimension of the Index addresses the sector’s ability to engage in constituency building and strategic planning, as well as internal management and staffing practices within CSOs. Finally, this dimension looks at the technical resources CSOs have available for their work.

Financial Viability: A critical mass of CSOs must be financially viable, and the economy must be robust enough to support CSO self-financing efforts and generate philanthropic donations from local sources. For many CSOs, financial viability may be equally dependent upon the availability of and their ability to compete for international donor support funds. Factors influencing the financial viability of the CSO sector include the state of the economy, the extent to which philanthropy and volunteerism are being nurtured in the local culture, as well as the extent to which government procurement and commercial revenue raising opportunities are being developed. The sophistication and prevalence of fundraising and strong financial management skills are also considered.

Advocacy: The political and advocacy environment must support the formation of coalitions and networks, and offer CSOs the means to communicate their messages through the media to the broader public, articulate their demands to USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 15

government officials, and monitor government actions to ensure accountability. The advocacy dimension looks at CSOs' record in influencing public policy. The prevalence of advocacy in different sectors, at different levels of government, as well as with the private sector is analyzed. The extent to which coalitions of CSOs have been formed around issues is considered, as well as whether CSOs monitor party platforms and government performance.

Service Provision: Sectoral sustainability will require a critical mass of CSOs that can efficiently provide services that consistently meet the needs, priorities, and expectations of their constituents. The service provision dimension examines the range of goods and services CSOs provide and how responsive these services are to community needs and priorities. The extent to which CSOs recover costs and receive recognition and support from the government for these services is also considered.

Infrastructure: A strong sectoral infrastructure is necessary to provide CSOs with broad access to local CSO support services. Intermediary support organizations (ISOs) providing these services must be able to inform, train, and advise other CSOs; and provide access to CSO networks and coalitions that share information and pursue issues of common interest. The prevalence and effectiveness of CSO partnerships with local business, government, and the media are also examined.

Public Image: For the sector to be sustainable, government, the business sector, and communities should have a positive public image of CSOs, including a broad understanding and appreciation of the role that CSOs play in society. Public awareness and credibility directly affect CSOs' ability to recruit members and volunteers, and encourage indigenous donors. The public image dimension looks at the extent and nature of the media's coverage of CSOs, the awareness and willingness of government officials to engage CSOs, as well as the public's knowledge and perception of the sector as a whole. CSOs’ public relations and self-regulation efforts are also considered.

In USAID’s 2014/2015 CSO Sustainability Index, the CSO sector in Jordan was defined as “sustainability impeded” (Index, pg. 32)”4:

The Index assessment stated that while CSOs play a critical role in Jordan’s development at national and local levels, they continue to face numerous challenges. These include weak internal management; underdeveloped institutional frameworks and administrative systems; and difficulty retaining permanent staff and establishing durable administrative structures, attributable in part to the dominance of project-based, short-term work (Index, pg. 35).

4 The 2014/2015 Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index for the Middle East and North Africa is the most recent report. The 2016 Index should be released by the time the RFP contract is awarded and should be considered during implementation. USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 16

SOURCE: The 2014/2015 Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index for the Middle East & North Africa, 32.

In harmony with this conceptualization of sustainability, FHI 360 highlights four pillars that support an organization’s ability to survive and thrive: institutional, programmatic, financial and environmental. For additional background, see the organizational handbook in Attachment 2: Reference Library for Going the Distance: Step-by-Step Strategies to Foster NGO Sustainability.

d. USAID/Jordan Strategic Goals

As highlighted in its Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), USAID/Jordan aims to “increase the effectiveness of civil society organizations to advocate for their interests, provide services to their members, and participate in political processes” (CDCS, pg. 14). Civil society strengthening falls under USAID/Jordan Development Objective 2, “Democratic Accountability Strengthened” and Intermediate Result 2.3, “Civil society engagement and effectiveness increased.” USAID/Jordan policy identifies an engaged and effective civil society in Jordan as critical to the country’s development and long-term stability. Recognizing challenges, USAID’s programs promote “a vibrant civil society that has both the political rights and organizational and institutional capacity to play a more effective role in decision-making processes, advocate for citizen rights, and expand opportunities for meaningful civic engagement around key issues spanning the sectors of USAID assistance” (CDCS, pg. 17).

Cross-cutting gender equality and female empowerment falls under USAID/Jordan Special Development Objective 4, “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Enhanced.” Among other activities, cross-cutting gender programming aims to “strengthen institutional structures, build the political capacity and leadership skills of women to lead reform, and facilitate networking amongst women’s organizations and CSOs that address gender inequality” (CDCS, pg. 28). The USAID/Jordan CDCS provides additional background civil society and gender aims and priorities.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 17

Through targeted technical assistance and grants, USAID/Jordan has long supported civil society, seeking to enhance its role, capacities, influence and ability to contribute to key national objectives. At this time, USAID CIS is USAID/Jordan’s primary mechanism to support civil society in Jordan.

C.3. USAID CIS CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

a. USAID CIS Results Framework

USAID CIS is a five-year activity funded by USAID/Jordan and implemented by FHI 360 with the objective to cultivate a strong and vibrant civil society in Jordan by supporting a broad range of civic initiatives. Working at both national and local levels, USAID CIS supports civic initiatives and advocacy responding to common interests, strengthens the organizational capacity of CSOs and promotes GOJ-civil society collaboration efforts to address reform and development challenges. Program support includes grants to groups to advance programs that respond to citizens’ demands and for thematic areas identified by USAID; institutional strengthening customized to individual CSO needs; and facilitating dialogue between citizens and government. The overall program objective and intermediate results (IR) are illustrated below along with the specific IRs for capacity development.

The program theory of change asserts that:

IF we invest in initiatives and advocacy related to common interests, increase the capacity of CSOs to implement those initiatives and promote constructive efforts for civil society and the GoJ to jointly address Jordanian challenges and reform, THEN civil society will be better skilled and more empowered to promote the common interests of Jordanians.

The program’s work is implemented through three components related to the intermediate results, as illustrated in Table 3: USAID CIS Components.

Table 3: USAID CIS ComponentsComponent I Component II Component III

Supports key citizen‐identified issues related to Jordan’s political, economic and social development

Supports capacity building activities through supplying overarching capacity development technical assistance and services that support grantees and other CSOs to strengthen their civic pursuits.

Focuses on demand‐driven capacity development support tailored to

Promotes government openness and capacity to engage in dialogue with civil society


organizational needs identified through guided self‐assessment.

Recipients include all USAID CIS grantees as well as non-grantee CSOs that are interested in strengthening their capacities, particularly grantees of other USAID implementing partners (IPs).

This Subcontract targets Component II, which is described in greater detail in Section C.3. For additional information on USAID CIS, see the program’s website (<http://www.cisjordan.org/Default.aspx>), Attachment 5: USAID CIS Results Framework and Attachment 2: Reference Library for the USAID CIS Gender Analysis and Workplan.

USAID CIS supports the development of the broad spectrum of Jordanian CSOs with approximately 1,300 organizations represented by 2,750 individuals5 engaged to date in a variety of capacity development interventions that aim to strengthen core organizational systems and skill sets.

In implementing Component II, USAID CIS employs a capacity development approach that focuses on improving performance by addressing both human and organizational performance factors in an integrated, systemic and systematic way. The program supports the interplay of leadership and individual skills and knowledge as well as organizational structures and procedures to support organizations to deliver results and become performing organizations.

b. Capacity Needs and Priorities

USAID CIS identified and prioritized areas of focus for capacity development programming through extensive consultation with a wide array of stakeholders, including CSOs from across the Kingdom and USAID implementers representing all CDCS sectors; consideration of learning and recommendations drawn from other relevant programs; and review of existing USAID/Jordan and other resources that highlighted needs, gaps and opportunities. These resources included results from two surveys taken at the start of USAID CIS in 2013: one of CSO stakeholder and another of USAID implementing partners to capture perspectives on capacity needs and key insights from the Jordan Civil Society Program, “first generation” civil society support programming that led to USAID CIS.

c. Principles

Core principles guide the USAID CIS program and its approach to capacity development:

Learning by Doing (Experiential Learning): CSOs are given the opportunity to learn on-the-job, complementing and reinforcing classroom training, customized technical assistance and mentoring to allow them to practice their newly acquired skills and knowledge as they pursue their civic initiatives.

Inclusion and Diversity: Gender equality, a rights-based approach, inclusion, good governance and transparency are integral to USAID CIS’s operating model and form the core foundation on which all program activities are designed.

5 Unique number of organizations and individuals, some of whom have subsequently participated in multiple CIS offerings. USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 19

Demand-Driven: Grants, capacity building support and the promotion of civil society-government dialogue are demand-driven. The program does not directly implement initiatives, but provides CSOs the necessary technical, strategic and financial support to implement their own initiatives in line with their missions.

d. Institutional Capacity Assessments

Institutional capacity assessments are integral to the program’s approach to strengthening civil society. These include organizational-level as well as thematic assessments, such as organizational governance, advocacy, gender, and disability inclusion. Institutional assessments are incorporated into the design of grant mechanisms and are a prerequisite for the development of customized capacity building interventions and mentoring support. Facilitated by USAID CIS staff, consultants and partners, pre-assessments take place at initial stages of CSO participation in programming with reassessments taking place upon grant completion or up to six months after an organization’s participation in a major capacity development initiative.

The program primarily utilizes three USAID institutional assessment processes and associated tools, adapted to the context and modified to assess gender and inclusion of persons with disabilities as well as organizational advocacy and influencing capabilities (see Attachment 6: USAID CIS Capacity Assessment Tools):

Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool (ICAT): Based on the USAID Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) process and associated tool, the ICAT combines a facilitated organizational self-assessment, anonymous surveys and third-party verification (FHI 360 staff or its representatives). It is recommended for medium and large CSOs. It covers seven broad areas of capacity: governance, administration, human resources management, financial management, organizational management, program management, and project performance management.

In addition, USAID CIS developed the Institutional Capacity Assessment for Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities Tool (ICAT Inclusion) as an additional section to the ICAT (Section 8). The program adapted the principles from the Christian Blind Mission’s inclusion assessment tool—INGO Accountability Charter, Promoting and Practicing Disability Inclusive Development and Organization Capacity Assessment—to facilitate the assessment of organizational capacity concerning inclusion of persons with disabilities on all levels. Similar to the ICAT, the ICAT Inclusion process and tool combine a facilitated self-assessment session, with verification from an external third party taking place in parallel and is supplemented by individual interviews and document review. See Attachment 6: USAID CIS Capacity Assessment Tools.

Institutional Development Assessment (IDA): Similar to the ICAT, the IDA is a simplified assessment process and associated tool facilitated with organizations at a young stage of development. The IDA provides a basis to guide organizational strengthening of capacities for influencing local policy decisions, providing services, and creating systems to facilitate such activities. It covers four broad components or functional areas of capacity: management systems, financial resources, external relations, program/service delivery. See Attachment 6: USAID CIS Capacity Assessment Tools.


Upon completing the ICAT/IDA process, organizations produce an action plan to focus USAID CIS and their own efforts to build capacity and improve performance. These plans also serve as tools to track progress made in addressing gaps and deficiencies. To date, USAID CIS has directly facilitated nearly 100 institutional assessments for 82 organizations:

38 pre- and 8 post-ICATs 44 pre- and 10 post-IDAs

In addition to IDAs facilitated directly by USAID CIS, CSOs under the Internal Strengthening for Change program (ISC I and II) undertook an IDA facilitated by USAID CIS partners, Jordan River Foundation (JRF) and Noor Al Hussein Foundation (NHF). Under ISC I, a total of 124 CSOs conducted these institutional assessments. Under ISC II, 45 of the CSOs that developed their strategies under ISC I will take part in a follow-on assessment, while the 19 CSOs that received USAID CIS grant support will take part in two follow-on assessments. For a list of completed and upcoming ICATs/IDAs, see .

Table 4: Upcoming ICATs & IDAs Reassessments (by this RFP’s sub-tasks)

MonthSub-Task #2:

Grantee Recipients

Sub-Task #3:SEF

ICAT IDA ICAT2017 September 2 3October 4 2November 6 3December 3 3 42018 January 0 2 1February 3 7March 1April 1July 1

Total: 20 17 5

It is important to note that ICATs/IDAs are distinct from FHI 360's or USAID's pre-award assessments and are not used to assess an organization’s eligibility or ability to manage a sub award.

e. Capacity and Performance

An organization strengthens or changes its internal capacity in order to strengthen or change its performance—the actual result of its work in comparison to its intended goals, objectives and targets. In other words, the aim of developing an organization’s capacity is to improve its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Through this process of organizational change, an organization moves from its present state of capacity and performance to a desired future state that aligns with its strategies, needs and priorities.


USAID CIS assists organizations to develop a range of capacities. These include organizational, technical, adaptive, influencing and cross-cutting capacities. This evaluative Activity and its component Sub-Tasks (see Section C.1.c) primarily focus on two capacities:

Organizational capacity : The resources, knowledge, processes that enable an organization to achieve its goals, objectives and targets. Organizational capacity involves the creation, strengthening and maintenance of an organization’s internal systems, policies, procedures and skills.

Cross-cutting capacity : The recognition and integration of human rights and gender equality principles and concepts into an organization’s systems, policies, and procedures and the development of related skills to carry these out in practice.

Organizational CapacityUSAID CIS assists organizations to strengthen capacity and performance under eight thematic domains, summarized in Table 5: Capacity DevelopmentDomains, Topics, and Relevant Stakeholders. The USAID CIS institutional assessment processes and tools described in Section C.3.d align with these domains.

The CIS program tailors its capacity development support to the needs of organizations at differing stages of development—such as newly established or mature CBOs—and to each organization’s specific needs. Capacity development activities emphasize several core organizational competencies that are also in harmony with the above domains:

Organizational governance Strategic planning Monitoring and evaluation Financial management and compliance

Table 5: Capacity Development Domains, Topics, and Relevant Stakeholders

Domain| Objectives Relevant Stakeholders 1. Governance and Legal Structure Vision and mission statements, legal registration and compliance, organizational structure, board composition and responsibility, and succession planning

Chief executive (director), board chair or representative, senior managers, legal counsel for the organization (in-house or external), chief financial officer, directors of units, and key staff in implementing programs (this include fundraising and donations, communication, and M&E staff), and staff and consultants.

2. Financial Management and Internal Control SystemsFinancial management systems, financial controls, financial documentation, financial statements and financial reporting, audit experience, and cost sharing capacity

Chief executive (director), board chair or representative, chief financial officer, accountant, financial staff, and external auditor

3. Administration and Procurement SystemsOperational policies, procedures, and systems, including those for travel, procurement, fixed asset control, and branding and marking as well as management and the degree of management and staff understanding and compliance

Chief executive (director), chief financial officer, accountant, financial staff, external auditor, and IT manager, project managers and staff, and some staff, members from the organization.


Domain| Objectives Relevant Stakeholders 4. Human Resources SystemsStaff job descriptions, recruitment and retention approaches, staffing levels, personnel policies, staff time management and payroll system, staff and consultant history documentation, staff salary and benefits policy, staff performance management, staff diversity, policy on volunteers and interns

Chief executive (director); human resources director and staff

5. Program & Grant Management Donor compliance, subaward management, technical reporting, stakeholder involvement, and addressing culture and gender issues

Chief executive (director), program managers and staff, sub-grant and sub-contract recipients, key stakeholders (clients)

6. Project Performance ManagementMonitor and evaluate projects, implement high-quality programs that meet recognized standards, supervise staff, and provide field support and oversight

Chief executive (director), managers and staff responsible for monitoring and evaluation

7. Organizational Management and SustainabilityStrategic planning, annual workplans, change management; knowledge generation and sharing, linkages, financial sustainability, internal communications and decision making

Board; chief executive (director); senior managers; managers and staff of program, fundraising, communications, and monitoring and evaluation units; consultants involved in organizational development strategic planning, fundraising, and change management

8. InclusionINGO Accountability Standards, inclusion of persons with disabilities on all levels.

Chief executive (director), board chair or representative, senior managers, HR manager, chief financial officer and communication officer, IT officer

SOURCE: USAID CIS Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool (ICAT) and Institutional Capacity Assessment for Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities Tool (ICAT Inclusion)

USAID CIS training, technical assistance, mentoring and other capacity development support targets these competencies because they are fundamental to well-developed and functional organizations.

Cross-Cutting Human Rights and Gender CapacityAs highlighted throughout this RFP, USAID CIS prioritizes the development of capacities that enable CSOs to integrate, uphold and promote principles and practices related to human rights and gender. Key concepts are briefly described below.

Human Rights-Based Approach: A human rights-based approach (HRBA) to programming requires the conscious and systematic attention to human rights and rights principles in all aspects of programming. This includes 1) recognizing that a primary goal of development programs is to further the realization of rights, 2) guiding all programs by human rights principles and standards (such as equality and non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, accountability and rule of law), and 3) focusing on strengthening capacities of rights-holders and duty-bearers.

In 2003, the United Nations Development Group adopted the UN Statement of Common Understanding on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation and Programming. As described at the UN Practitioners’ Portal on USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 23

Human Rights Based Approaches to Programming (http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-rights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies), the purpose was to ensure that UN agencies, funds and programs apply a consistent HRBA to common programming processes. The common understanding comprises three elements:

1. All programs of development co-operation, policies and technical assistance should further the realization of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.

2. Human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and in all phases of the programming process.

3. Development cooperation contributes to the development of the capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations and/or of ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights.

Among the human rights principles referred to in the statement are universality and inalienability; indivisibility; inter-dependence and inter-relatedness; non-discrimination and equality; participation and inclusion; accountability and the rule of law. For the programming under this RFP, three principles shall be considered:

Equality and Non-discrimination : All individuals are equal as human beings and by virtue of the inherent dignity of each human person. All human beings are entitled to their human rights without discrimination of any kind, such as race, color, sex, ethnicity, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status as explained by the human rights treaty bodies.

Participation and Inclusion : Every person and all peoples are entitled to active, free and meaningful participation in, contribution to, and enjoyment of civil, economic, social, cultural and political development in which human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized.

Accountability and Rule of Law : States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights. In this regard, they have to comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in human rights instruments. Where they fail to do so, aggrieved rights-holders are entitled to institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law.

These and other human rights principles are described at the UN Practitioners’ Portal on Human Rights Based Approaches to Programming. Additional useful information on these principles may be found in publications6 issued by USAID and UNFPA, among others.

Gender Dimensions: USAID suggests methodically taking account of six gender dimensions to inform programming and assist the collection and organization of information. These domains can serve as a useful guide during implementation

6 See USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance; A Human Rights-Based Approach to Programming: Practical Implementation Manual and Training Materials (HRBA Checklist of Questions), Geneva: UNFPA, 2010, http://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-based-approach-programming; and Human Rights-Based Development Literature, Washington, DC: USAID Knowledge Services Center, 2010, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00HPZV.pdf.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 24

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00HPZV.pdf

http://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-based-approach-programming

http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-rights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies



of this Activity. Many intersect with and inform the contextual dimensions outlined above.

1. Access : This refers to a person’s ability to use the necessary resources to be a fully active and productive participant (socially, economically, and politically) in society. It includes access to resources, income, services, employment, information, and benefits.

2. Knowledge, Beliefs, and Perception : This refers to the types of knowledge that men and women possess; the beliefs that shape gender identities and behavior, and the different perceptions that guide people’s understanding of their lives, depending upon their gender identity.

3. Practices and Participation : This refers to peoples’ behaviors and actions in life – what they actually do – and how this varies by gender roles and responsibilities.

4. Time and Space : This recognizes gender differences in the availability and allocation of time and the locations in which time is spent.

5. Legal Rights and Status : This involves assessing how people are regarded and treated by customary legal codes, formal legal codes, and judicial systems.

6. Power and Decision Making : This pertains to the ability of people to decide, influence, control, and enforce personal and governmental power.

In its Framework for Gender Integration, FHI 360 also outlines key principles related to integrating gender in programming as well as useful approaches to gender analysis. See Attachment 2: Reference Library for additional information on gender dimensions and gender analysis7.

f. Capacity Development Mechanisms

USAID CIS capacity development programming includes both open grant opportunities for the provision of relevant services as well as direct technical assistance provided by USAID CIS and sub-contractors to grantees and non-grantee CSOs. Three main mechanisms or methods are utilized to deliver capacity development services.

1. Subawards : A range of grants that support CSO capacity development, including budget support embedded within broader CSO subawards that address USAID’s priority sectors (economic development, education, environment, health, democracy, human rights and governance) as well as cross-cutting areas (such as gender and youth).

2. Capacity-building initiatives : USAID CIS program initiatives that serve as mechanisms to deliver a variety of capacity development services targeting a mix of capacity domains and themes.

3. ISO strengthening initiatives : USAID CIS program initiatives that target core competencies of national and sub-national CSOs that are providing capacity development services as sub-contractors of USAID CIS as well as independently, for other clients. This support includes training of trainer (ToT) courses.

7 Reference documents include Tips for Conducting a Gender Analysis at the Activity or Project Level: Additional Help for ADS Chapter 201. Working draft, Washington, DC: USAID, 2010, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacx964.pdf ; ADS Chapter 205 – Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle, Washington, DC: USAID, 2013, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/205.pdf ; and the USAID CIS Gender Equality in Project Design: Guiding Questions by Hala Ghosheh.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 25

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/205.pdf

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacx964.pdf

Interventions associated with each method are listed in Table 6: USAID CapacityDevelopment Interventions. This Subcontract targets subawards and capacity building initiatives. (ISO strengthening activities will be explored under a separate thematic review.)

Table 6: USAID Capacity Development Interventions

Subawards Capacity-Building Initiatives

ISO Strengthening Initiatives

Societies Empowerment Fund (SEF)

Institutional Strengthening Fund (ISF)

Budget line for capacity-building activities

Direct courses and other technical assistance

Internal Strengthening for Change (ISC)

Fundamentals of CSO Sustainability (FCS)

Demand-Driven Open Courses

ISC I & II (implemented through JRF and NHF)

CSO Training in Excellence Program (CTEP)

Project Design and Proposal Writing ToT (PDPW PRO)

Financial Management Training for ISOs (Mango)

Several program interventions are completed, while others will continue through June 2018, as illustrated in Table 7: Timeline of Major Capacity DevelopmentInterventions.

Table 7: Timeline of Major Capacity Development Interventions

Year I(2013-14)

Year II(2014-

15)

Year III(2015-

16)Year IV

(2016-17)Year V

(2017-18)

Institutional Strengthening FundInternal Strengthening for Change I Internal Strengthening for Change II

Demand-Driven Open Courses Project Design & Proposal Writing (PDPW Pro)

Societies Empowerment FundCSO Partners in Training Excellence

Financial Management Training for ISOs (Mango)Fundamentals of CSO Sustainability Program

Institutional capacity assessments (ICATs/IDAs)Budget allocation for capacity development (embedded in selected grant awards)

Subaward and capacity-building initiatives are briefly described below. Additional background is provided in Attachment 7: Capacity Development Program Interventions (Selected Descriptions).

Subawards Societies Empowerment Fund (SEF) : This two-phased grant program (Phase I:

Foundational Structure and Phase II: Program Implementation & Capacity Development) applies a holistic approach to supporting CSOs to strengthen organizational effectiveness and sustainability through assessing, planning, and developing institutional capacities as well as integrating a human rights-based approach (HRBA) into their programs and operations. (Average grant = JOD 70K)


Institutional Strengthening Fund (ISF) : Grants awarded to CSOs for direct contracting and self-management of capacity development assistance and customized support aligned with organizational priorities, such as reinforcing technical (sector-specific) capabilities, strengthening capacity in strategic planning, knowledge management systems, and similar activities. (Average grant = JOD 15K)

Budget Support : Selected subaward competitions included a specific budget line item for capacity development (targeted as 10% of total award amount) to support customized technical assistance and institutional strengthening as defined by grantees. This approach enabled grantee-driven management of activities to address identified priorities and self-crafting of optimal combinations of capacity development services to fit grantee-specific needs.

Direct courses and technical assistance : Grantee training to strengthen compliant management of grant awards and strengthen cross-cutting capacities related to gender integration, human rights and social inclusion (particularly of youth and marginalized groups). Grants over $25K are required to participate in full modules, while in-kind grants or those under $25K participate in an abbreviated version. Training is provided through a curriculum of short courses on topics including grant management and compliance, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), project design and cross-cutting themes (advocacy, gender, HRBA and inclusion).

Cross-cutting capacities focus on understanding and assistance to strategically address norms, practices, inequalities and disparities by integrating gender considerations and a rights-based approach into all stages of CSO programs Training is complemented with mentoring to reinforce understanding and develop functional grasp.

Capacity-Building Interventions Internal Strengthening for Change (ISC I & II) : This program specifically

targeted nascent community-based organizations registered from January 2010 onwards in a two-phased program. Phase I supported CBOs to understand and apply the principles of effective CBO management and good governance through assessing organizational status, undertaking strategic planning, and developing strategic and organizational improvement plans. Phase II provided follow-on capacity development and mentoring support to Phase I “graduates,” along with a competitive grant competition to support implementation of their newly-developed strategic plans.

Fundamentals of CSO Sustainability (FCS) : Pillar I: Strategic Planning & Board Governance assists organizations to grasp strategic planning concepts and processes and develop a three-to-five-year strategic plan along with related fundraising plan and to assess and improve organizational governance. Pillar II: Financial Management and Compliance assists organizations to identify organizational financial management needs, develop a customized financial improvement plan, and build basic systems and practices needed to effectively and efficiently manage finances as well as assure compliance with organizational and donor policies.

Open courses : Offered from 2014-16, USAID CIS provided demand-driven training through a selection of short courses to any interested CSO, including grantees. In addition, there were specific courses offered to grantees only. See Table 8: USAID CIS Open Courses for a list of main topics8. To date, 297

8 For detailed information, see Capacity Building Course Catalog for Jordanian Civil Society Organizations 2015-2016 <http://www.cisjordan.org/Documents/Capacity-USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 27

unique organizations have benefited from 49 different courses in seven topics: M&E, Advocacy, Project Design & Proposal Writing, Budgeting for Proposals, Fundamentals of Procurement, Project Management, and Strategic Communications Planning for Development Projects.

Table 8: USAID CIS Open Courses

Organizational Management

Project Design and Management

Cross-Cutting andTechnical Subjects

Financial Management Basics

Procurement Fundamentals for CSOs

Project Design and Proposal Writing

Budgeting for Proposals Organizational M&E Foundations Project Management Basics Effective Communications for

Development Projects

Introduction to Advocacy Mainstreaming of Gender

Perspective into Projects Qualitative Research

Methodologies Inclusion 101: Advancing

Disability Rights

g. Capacity Development Services

USAID CIS provides CSOs with a wide range of services that support development of individual knowledge, skills and behaviors and organizational systems, policies and practices. USAID CIS typically combines several mutually-reinforcing support services into a larger capacity development intervention to provide participants with holistic assistance.

Assessments : Participatory analysis of organizational and thematic capacities. At times these were facilitated once with CSOs (prior to participation in a programmatic intervention) with reassessments planned post-implementation/end of the programmatic intervention (pending willingness of the organization). These include organizational capacity assessments (ICATs/IDAs) and thematic assessments (governance, advocacy, gender, disability inclusion).

Trainings : Classroom-based short courses covering a variety of topics, such as advocacy, gender, grant management and proposal development. Includes direct courses and open courses, as described in Section C.3.f.

Mentoring and coaching : Assistance provided one-on-one to individuals and individual organizations to complement and reinforce classroom learning through advice and guidance on practice.

Customized technical assistance : Capacity development activities tailored to an organization’s specific needs, interests and concerns.

Budget support : Funding allocated through a capacity development budget line within subawards, as described in Section C.3.f.

Summative evaluation : End-of-project evaluation of a grantee's CIS-funded project and/or a specific project to determine the extent to which it achieved desired results, with the aim to assist a grantee, USAID CIS and USAID to make decisions regarding effective practices, needed course corrections and options for continued support.

Networking opportunities : Interactions facilitated by USAID CIS to bring together organizations, interest groups and/or stakeholders to share

Building/USAID%20CIS%20Capacity%20Building%20Catalog%202015-16%20Final%20ENG.pdf>.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 28

experiences, learn from one another and, as appropriate, craft coalitions to advocate for and cooperate on addressing shared priority issues.

h. Measures of Change

In the context of USAID CIS capacity development programming, organizational change is the process by which an organization moves from its present state of capacity and performance to a desired future state that aligns with its strategies, needs and priorities. As summarized in Section C.3.e, change may be experienced in an organization’s capacity—generally the creation or strengthening of its systems, policies, standards, procedures and/or skills—and in an organization’s performance—the actual result of its work in comparison to its intended goals, objectives and targets.

USAID CIS applies multiple methods to assess and analyze organizational change in capacity and performance. This includes assisting participating CSOs to self-analyze their organizational status and progress and implementing routine program monitoring and evaluation activities. These methods produce valuable qualitative and quantitative data that give insight into organizational capacity needs, performance and results that are used to inform organizational development and USAID CIS program direction and decision-making.

Participating CSOs and USAID CIS regularly monitor and analyze changes. As described in Section C.3.d, organizations take part in ICAT/IDA capacity assessments conducted before and after participation in program activities, along with developing an action plan. Thematic assessments also entail the development of related action plans. In addition, many participating organizations take part in strategic planning processes and develop an associated work plan. These processes and tools are designed to assist organizations to focus on tangible, attainable improvements and methodically track and measure their progress over time.

At an aggregate, programmatic level, USAID CIS regularly examines organizational capacity and produces periodic reports to guide the design and implementation of capacity development activities. In addition to indicator data related to IR 2: “CSOs function more effectively,” useful current and upcoming analytic reports include:

Advocacy Capacity Index (2017) Aggregate Capacity Development Budget Support Analysis (2017) Aggregate ICAT CSO Progress Analysis (2017) SEF Organizational Development Reports (2017) Summative Evaluations for selected grantees Open Courses Assessment Findings (2016) ISC Assessment, Focus Group Discussions (2015)

In addition, in 2016 USAID/Jordan commissioned its Monitoring and Evaluation Support Project (MESP) to conduct the USAID CIS Program Mid-Term Performance Evaluation, which included findings and recommendations on capacity development:

1. Categorize CSOs and provide services reflecting capacity and development stage, taking account of high turnover of staff

2. Identify and address niche or advanced training requirements3. Lengthen training duration to make training more substantive and

meaningful4. Ensure advocacy training is grounded in Jordanian context


5. Pair ISOs with CBOs to provide specialized and tailored assistance6. Introduce ISC participants to social accountability mechanisms to

introduce advocacy alongside service delivery

USAID CIS took account of these in its subsequent program design for Year IV-V implementation and reported back to USAID on the status of those recommendations. See Attachment 2: Reference Library for USAID CIS Program Mid-Term Performance Evaluation and USAID CIS Analysis of Mid-Term Report Recommendations for additional detail.

C.4. PERSONNEL

a. Evaluation Team Competencies

The evaluation team shall be composed of experts with significant knowledge of civil society and capacity development in developing countries in general and Jordan in particular in addition to the following team competencies:

Familiarity with USAID evaluation policy and experience evaluating USAID-funded programs

Experience conducting complex thematic evaluations with a focus on civil society for international development organizations

Experience mainstreaming gender and HRBA approaches in evaluations Expertise in evaluation design methodologies Expertise in qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis Experience producing team-based, collaborative reports that are learning-

oriented Excellent communication skills, and fluency in written and spoken English

and Arabic

b. Evaluation Team Positions

The staff positions set forth in this section are considered necessary for implementation of Sub-Tasks and achievement of results under this Activity. All positions described in this section are mid-level personnel.

Continuity of technical expertise across Sub-Tasks is desirable, balanced with sufficient staffing to efficiently execute the work within the performance period and taking into consideration cost-efficiencies where applicable (i.e. development of common data collection tools; parallel field work; reporting; and similar factors). In its technical proposal, Offerors may propose an alternative staffing structure and/or a mix of individual or joint teams for Sub-Tasks. After contract award, prior written approval of the Technical Monitor must be obtained for any change.

Activity Manager (Mid-Level) Primary Responsibilities: This position shall be accountable for overall Activity management, team recruitment and performance, quality and timeliness of deliverables, external representation, coordination with USAID CIS and compliance with any and all contractual obligations and results.

Required Qualifications: Either a minimum of Master’s degree in a relevant field or a

Bachelor’s degree with a minimum of seven years of relevant experience.


At least seven years of experience managing and/or evaluating development projects, of which at least three years of experience with international development, with experience on USAID programming preferable.

Demonstrated experience leading teams, preferably on large-scale or complex projects.

Proven management expertise, with accountability for strategic leadership, programming quality, evidence-based results, donor compliance.

Experience working with a diverse group of stakeholders, including donor/development organizations, government officials, civil society leaders, community leaders, and project beneficiaries.

Professionally proficient and fluent in written and spoken English and Arabic.

Team Leader(s) (Mid-Level)Primary Responsibilities: This position shall be accountable for the day-to-day management of the Activity and oversight of component Sub-Task(s), including methodology selection process, appropriate sampling techniques, application of participatory methods, validation and implementation of data analysis and development of key findings, conclusions and recommendations.


Bachelor’s degree with a minimum of 7-10 years of relevant experience.

At least 7-10 years of experience in evaluation design and implementation, of which at least seven years of experience with international development, with experience on USAID programming preferable.

Must demonstrate experience in leading evaluation design teams, data collection and analysis.

Demonstrated strong qualitative and quantitative data analysis skills.

Demonstrated ability to effectively use participatory evaluation methods, with experience building M&E capacity preferred.

Professionally proficient and fluent in written and spoken English and Arabic.

Technical Expert(s) (Mid-Level)Primary Responsibilities: This position shall provide subject matter expertise for design, data collection and data analysis for programming focused on civil society, capacity development and other relevant fields.


Bachelor’s degree with a minimum of seven years of relevant experience.

At least seven years of experience in the area of technical expertise of which at least four years of experience in international development.

Demonstrated experience in applying technical expertise to evaluation design, primary data collection and analysis.

Preferred previous direct experience working with newly-established as well as mature CSOs on capacity development.


Preferred experience contributing to and/or exposure to complex evaluations

Experience in using participatory evaluation methods. Professionally proficient and fluent in written and spoken English

and Arabic.

C.5. ETHICS

a. Code of Conduct

It is expected the evaluator will respect the following ethical code of conduct:

Independence: Evaluators shall ensure that independence of judgment is maintained and that evaluation findings and recommendations are independently presented.

Impartiality: Evaluators shall operate in an impartial and unbiased manner and give a balanced presentation of strengths and weaknesses of the policy, program, project or organisational unit being evaluated.

Conflict of Interest: Evaluators are required to disclose in writing any past experience, which may give rise to a potential conflict of interest, and to deal honestly in resolving any conflict of interest which may arise.

Honesty and Integrity: Evaluators shall show honesty and integrity in their own behavior, negotiating honestly the evaluation costs, tasks, limitations, scope of results likely to be obtained, while accurately presenting their procedures, data and findings and highlighting any limitations or uncertainties of interpretation within the evaluation.

Competence: Evaluators shall accurately represent their level of skills and knowledge and work only within the limits of their professional training and abilities in evaluation, declining assignments for which they do not have the skills and experience to complete successfully.

Accountability: Evaluators are accountable for the completion of the agreed evaluation deliverables within the timeframe and budget agreed, while operating in a cost-effective manner.

Confidentiality: Evaluators shall respect people’s right to provide information in confidence and make participants aware of the scope and limits of confidentiality, while ensuring that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source.

Avoidance of Harm: Evaluators shall act to minimize risks and harms to, and burdens on, those participating in the evaluation, without compromising the integrity of the evaluation findings.

Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability: Evaluators have an obligation to ensure that evaluation reports and presentations are accurate, complete and reliable. Evaluators shall explicitly justify judgments, findings and conclusions and show their underlying rationale, so that stakeholders are in a position to assess them.

Transparency: Evaluators shall clearly communicate to stakeholders the purpose of the evaluation, the criteria applied and the intended use of findings. Evaluators shall ensure that stakeholders have a say in shaping the evaluation and shall ensure that all documentation is readily available to and understood by stakeholders.

Omissions and wrongdoing: Where evaluators find evidence of wrong-doing or unethical conduct, they are obliged to report it to the proper oversight authority of this RFP.

b. Conflict of Interest


All evaluation team members shall sign a Disclosures of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest (<https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/DisclosConflictInt.pdf>), attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to this Activity.

[END OF SECTION C]


SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 BRANDING POLICY

Markings under this solicitation shall comply with the USAID CIS Branding and Marking Plan as per Attachment 9.

[END OF SECTION D]


SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

FHI 360 inspection and acceptance of services, reports and other required deliverables or outputs must take place at:

Jordan USAID CIS Office, Suleiman al Hadidi Street #38, Um Uthaina, Amman

or at any other location where the services are performed and reports and deliverables or outputs are produced or submitted. The Technical Monitor identified in Section G or his/her designee has been delegated authority to inspect and accept all services, reports, and deliverables required by RFP.

[END OF SECTION E]


SECTION F - DELIVERABLES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The estimated effective date for this Activity is on or about December 1, 2017 and the completion date is April 30, 2018.

F.2. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The place of performance of the Activity is Jordan. The place of performance of individual Sub-Tasks will be according to Sub-Task sample (see Section C.1.c and Attachment 7: Capacity Development Program Interventions (Selected Descriptions).

F.3. ACTIVITY REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS

The evaluator must submit reports, deliverables or outputs as further described below to the Technical Monitor for approval by the Technical Monitor. All reports shall be submitted electronically in unlocked MS Word or Excel formats (as specified by USAID CIS and/or as appropriate to the nature of the document). The evaluator must promptly notify the Technical Monitor of any problems, delays or adverse conditions that materially impair the evaluator’s ability to meet the requirements.

a. Deliverables

The required deliverables for this Activity are specified hereunderError:Reference source not found. All deliverables are in English unless otherwise indicated in the chart below.

Table 9: Subcontract Administration and Sub-Task Deliverables

Deliverables Sub-Task

#1: ISC

Sub-Task #2:

Grantees

Sub-Task #3:

SEF

Due Date

Set of Master Tools: Evaluation Design Matrix

(consolidated) for all Sub-Tasks Interview/Discussion Guide

(consolidated) for all Sub-Tasks

One set of Master Tools for all Sub-Tasks

Within 10 working days of award

Periodic Progress Reports One (consolidated) for all Sub-Tasks

On the 30th of each

monthActivity Final Report One (consolidated)

for all Sub-TasksApril 30,

2018Draft Inception Report* X X X Offerors to

proposeFinal Inception Report X X XData Collection Report and Data Set Submission

X X X

Oral Presentation and PowerPoint X X XDraft Evaluation Report X X XFinal Evaluation Report X X XFinal Evaluation Report Supplemental Executive Summary (Arabic)

X X X


* Once evaluation questions are approved in English, the subcontractor will submit translated questions in Arabic for approval.

Deliverables for Sub-Task #1, #2 and #3 shall be submitted on a staggered basis. The Offeror’s cost proposal shall include a fixed price for Subcontract Administration deliverables and for all other individual deliverables (see Section L).

Report Format and Contents Inception Report. The content of the Inception Report will be finalized

during the start-up phase of this Activity. The illustrative structure is as follows:

o Acronymso Table of Contentso Introductiono Backgroundo Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questionso Evaluation Methods and Limitationso Management Plano Annexes (including customized master tools and data collection logistics

plan)

Evaluation Report. The draft and final report main body should not exceed 30 pages, excluding the executive summary and annexes. The reports shall be presented according to USAID’s How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports and take into account USAID’s Evaluation Report Checklist and Review Template . The report shall make information accessible and comprehensible with evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons-learned and action-based recommendations, using a consistent and conventional system for footnotes and references in the text. The reports shall be structured in the following manner:

o Title and Title Pageo Acronymso Table of Contentso Executive Summaryo Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questionso Project Backgroundo Evaluation Methods and Limitationso Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendationso Reflections on USAID CIS Design and Implementationo Annexes

Periodic Progress Reports. The evaluator must submit periodic progress reports to the Technical Monitor with an update on the Activity’s progress, issues and constraints. All reports must be aligned with and address the Sub-Task activities detailed on the approved Work Plan. The reports shall be short, such as two to three (2-3) pages in length, and the contents shall include:

o Summary of progress since the previous report;o List of submitted deliverables and other significant documents or

materials;o Index of submitted datasets;o Status of resolving challenges/problems described in previous report;o New problems/challenges encountered since previous report;


https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-checklist-and-review-template

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-checklist-and-review-template

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/how-note-preparing-evaluation-reports

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/how-note-preparing-evaluation-reports

o Proposed solutions to outstanding and new problems;o Plans for next period.

The reports will be reviewed by the USAID CIS management team and Technical Monitor and approved by the Technical Monitor.

Activity Final Report. The evaluator will provide a final report that shall summarize the Activity’s major results, any problems encountered, notable achievements, lessons learned about the success, failure and challenges of implementing the Activity and recommendations for follow-up actions. The format and content shall be similar to the periodic progress reports covering the full performance period for the Activity. The report will be reviewed by the USAID CIS management team and the Technical Monitor and approved by the Technical Monitor.

b. Meetings

The evaluator shall be responsible for taking part in, at a minimum, monthly meetings/Skype calls with the Technical Monitor, and possibly more frequently if deemed by necessary by the Technical Monitor.

F.4 LANGUAGE OF DELIVERABLES

All reports and other outputs/deliverables shall be in the English language, unless otherwise specified in Error: Reference source not found.

F.5 SUBMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTATION TO USAID DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE (DEC)

USAID CIS shall review the reports and information products from the evaluator and shall submit them to the USAID DEC, as required, in accordance with the USAID DEC submission requirements.

F.6 SUBMISSION OF DATASETS TO USAID DEC

USAID CIS shall review the datasets from the evaluator and shall submit them to the USAID DEC, as required, in accordance with the USAID DEC submission requirements.

[END OF SECTION F]


SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.1 TECHNICAL MONITOR AND CONTRACTING OFFICER

The Technical Monitor is the only person responsible for the technical oversight of the implementation of all activities under this Activity. The Technical Monitor is not authorized to make or approve any changes in the requirements of this Subcontract and notwithstanding any provisions contained elsewhere in this Subcontract, the said authority remains solely in the Contracting Officer. In the event the Contractor makes any changes at the direction of any person other than the Technical Monitor, the change shall be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment shall be made in the contract terms and conditions, including price.

The Technical Monitor for this Subcontract is: Melissa Payson, Senior M&E Advisor to USAID CIS, Email: [email protected] ; Skype: mpayson.

The Contracting Officer for this Subcontract is: Ziad Abd-Rabu, FHI 360 Contract Management Services.

G.2 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIP WITH FHI 360

(a) Technical Directions is defined to include:

(1) Written directions to the Contractor which fill in details, suggest possible lines of inquiry, or otherwise facilitate completion of work;

(2) Provision of written information to the Contractor which assists in the interpretation of drawings, specifications or technical portions of the work statement;

(3) Review and, where required, provide written approval of technical reports, drawings, specifications or technical information to be delivered. Technical directions must be in writing, and must be within the statement of work as detailed in Section C.

(b) The Technical Monitor is authorized to take any or all action with respect to the following except any action specifically prohibited by the terms of this Contract:

(1) Assure that the Contractor performs the technical requirements of the Contract in accordance with the Contract terms, conditions, and specifications.

(2) Perform or cause to be performed, inspections necessary in connection with the Contractor’s performance and to direct the Contractor to correct all deficiencies; perform acceptance for the FHI 360.

(3) Maintain all liaison and direct communications with the Contractor. Written communications with the Contractor and documents must be signed as "Technical Monitor".

(4) Issue written interpretations of technical requirements of USAID CIS drawings, designs, and specifications.



(5) Monitor the Contractor's production or performance progress and notify the Contractor in writing of deficiencies observed during surveillance, and direct appropriate action to effect correction.

(c) Contractual problems of any nature that may arise during the life of the Contract must be handled in conformance with specific FHI 360 and the donors rules and regulations. Contractor effects any changes at the direction of any other person other than the Contracting Officer, the change will be considered to have been made without authority.

G.3. CONTRACTOR’S PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT

[To be included at Award]

G.4 ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL

In order to receive payment for costs incurred for services rendered under this contract, such costs and the work performed must be verified and approved by the Technical Monitor. In order to receive payment, all pertinent deliverables must be accepted and approved by the Technical Monitor. Fixed Fee will be paid only upon completion and acceptance of deliverables, pursuant to FAR 52.246-4, Inspection and Acceptance.

G.5 PAYING OFFICE

The Contractor must submit monthly invoices to the payment office at the following:

Name: Randa Marji, USAID CIS, Senior Operations ManagerTelephone: +962 6 593 3116Email: [email protected] Address: USAID CIS, 38 Suleiman Al Hadidi Street, Amman, Jordan

G.6 ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA


G.7 CONTRACTOR’S PAYMENT ADDRESS


[END OF SECTION G]


SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Any proposal received in response to this solicitation will be reviewed strictly as submitted and in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Criteria.

2. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224 ON TERRORIST FINANCING

Offerors are informed that FHI 360 complies with U.S. Sanctions and Embargo Laws and Regulations including Executive Order 13224 on Terrorist Financing, which effectively prohibit transactions with persons or entities that commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism. Any person or entity that participates in this bidding process, either as a prime or sub to the prime, must certify as part of the offer that he or it is not on the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List and is eligible to participate. FHI 360 shall disqualify any offer received from a person or entity that is found to be on the List or otherwise ineligible. Firms or individuals that are included on the Excluded Parties List System (www.epls.gov) shall not be eligible for financing and shall not be used to provide any commodities or services contemplated by this RFP.

3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are responsible for review of the terms and conditions described.

4. CONTRACT MECHANISM

FHI 360 anticipates awarding Fixed Price Subcontract under this RFP to the Offeror (s) whose proposal will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria described in Section M.

5. WITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSALS

Offerors may withdraw proposals by written notice via email received at any time before award. Proposals may be withdrawn in person by an Offeror or his/her authorized representative if the representative’s identity is made known and if the representative signs a receipt for the proposal before award.

6. RIGHT TO SELECT/REJECT

FHI 360 reserves the right to select and negotiate with those firms 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.

7. CLIENT PRIOR APPROVAL

The selected offeror will be subject to funding agency approval before a contract can be awarded. Therefore, organizations are reminded that there may be delays for this process to be completed. In addition, should such approval not be given, this contract cannot be awarded.

8. DISCLAIMER

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 USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 41

of the submitted proposals in whole or in part, nor is FHI 360 obligated to select the lowest priced proposal. FHI 360 reserves the right to negotiate with any or all firms, but with respect to price, costs and/or scope of services. FHI 360 has no contractual obligations with any firms based upon issuance of this RFP. It is not an offer to contact. Only the execution of a written contract shall obligate FHI 360 in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in such contract.

9. REQUEST FOR SUBCONTRACT PROPOSAL FIRM GUARANTEE

All information submitted in connection with this RFP will be valid for 90 (ninety) days from the RFP due date. This includes, but is not limited to, cost, pricing, terms and conditions, service levels, and all other information. If your firm is awarded the contract, all information in the RFP and negotiation process is contractually binding.

10. FALSE STATEMENTS IN OFFER

Offerors must provide full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation and its attachments.

11. 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 in or outside of Jordan. Failure to provide full and open disclosure may result in FHI 360 having to reevaluate selection of a potential Offeror.

12. RESERVED RIGHTS

All RFP responses become the property of FHI 360, and FHI 360 reserves the right in its sole discretion to:

To disqualify any offer based on offeror failure to follow solicitation instructions.

FHI 360 reserves the right to 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.

Extend the time for submission of all RFP responses after notification to all Offerors.

Terminate or modify the RFP process at any time and reissue the RFP to whomever FHI 360 deems appropriate.

FHI 360 reserves the right to issue an award based on the initial evaluation of offerors without discussion.

FHI 360 reserves the right to award only part of the activities in the solicitation or issue multiple awards based on solicitation activities.

FHI 360 will not compensate offerors for preparation of their response to this RFP.

Issuing this RFP is not a guarantee that FHI 360 will award a contract. FHI 360 may choose to award a contract to more than one offeror for

specific parts of the activities in the RFP.

H.2 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE

The authorized geographic code for the procurement of goods and services under this Contract is 937 or as specified in Subcontracts.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 42

H.3 LOGISTIC SUPPORT

The Contractor must be responsible for all administrative support and logistics required to fulfill the requirements of this Contract in Jordan and its provinces. These must include to all travel arrangements, appointment scheduling, secretarial services, report preparations services, printing, and duplicating.

H.4 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

Contractor personnel and/or consultants must have English and Arabic language proficiency as needed to perform technical services. FHI 360 reserves the right to test proposed individuals to ensure that they have the required language capability as required by the Subcontract.

H.5 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (JAN 1990)

No international travel is allowed under this contract except with the FHI 360’s Technical Monitor approval.

H.6 USAID DISABILITY POLICY (DECEMBER 2004) (ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE POLICY DIRECTIVE 04-17)

(a) The objectives of the USAID Disability Policy are (1) to enhance the attainment of United States foreign assistance program goals by promoting the participation and equalization of opportunities of individuals with disabilities in USAID policy, country and sector strategies, activity designs and implementation; (2) to increase awareness of issues of people with disabilities both within USAID programs and in host countries; (3) to engage other U.S. government agencies, host country counterparts, governments, implementing organizations and other donors in fostering a climate of nondiscrimination against people with disabilities; and (4) to support international advocacy for people with disabilities. The full text of the policy paper can be found at the following website: h t tp: / /pd f .usaid.gov/ p d f _docs/PDABQ631.p d f

(b) FHI 360 therefore requires that the Contractor not discriminate against people with disabilities in the implementation of FHI 360 programs and that it make every effort to comply with the objectives the USAID Disability Policy in performing this Contract. To that end and within the statement of work of the Contract, the Contractor's actions must demonstrate a comprehensive and consistent approach for including women and children with disabilities.

(d) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all contracts when the contractor’s employees are required to have routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility and/or routine access to a Federally-controlled information system. It shall be the responsibility of the prime Contractor to return such identification to the issuing agency in accordance with the terms set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

[END OF SECTION H]


SECTION I – FHI 360 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND FUNDER FLOW DOWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The following FHI 360 Terms and Conditions - subcontract apply to this subcontract:

1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The Subcontractor in all matters is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor. This Subcontract does not create the relationship of principal and agent, employer and employee, joint venture, or partnership between the Subcontractor and FHI 360. Neither Subcontractor nor anyone employed by it represent, act, purport to act, will be or be deemed to be an agent, representative, or employee of FHI 360. The Subcontractor will comply with all laws and assume all risks incident to Subcontractor’s status as an independent entity. This includes, but is not limited to, responsibility for all applicable income taxes, associated payroll and business taxes, licenses and fees, and workers compensation and other insurance as required by law or as necessary for Subcontractor’s protection in connection with work performed under this Subcontract.

2. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDuring the term of this Subcontract, Subcontractor and its employees may receive or have access to data and information that is confidential and proprietary to FHI 360 or its funder. “Confidential Information” is defined as all technical, financial or business data or information that is proprietary to FHI 360 or its funder and is not generally known to the public, whether directly or indirectly disclosed, in verbal, written, graphic, photographic, electronic, prototypic, sample or any other form.

Confidential Information does NOT include information that:

is or becomes generally available to the public other than as a result of a disclosure by Subcontractor;

becomes available to Subcontractor on a non-confidential basis from a source that is not prohibited by a legal, contractual or fiduciary obligation from disclosing such information;

is developed independently by Subcontractor without use of Confidential Information, as demonstrated by written records and evidence;

was in Subcontractor’s possession or known to Subcontractor prior to receipt from the disclosing party; or

is required by law to be disclosed, provided Subcontractor notifies FHI 360 promptly and gives FHI 360 an opportunity to seek an appropriate protective order.

Confidential Information may be used by Subcontractor or its employees only for purposes of performing the obligations under this Subcontract. Subcontractor will not reveal, publish or otherwise disclose Confidential Information to any third party without the prior written consent of FHI 360.

All “Confidential Information” disclosed to or otherwise made known to Subcontractor as a result of services under this Subcontract remains the sole property of FHI 360 and/or its funding sponsor. These obligations of confidentiality and non-disclosure will remain in effect at all times during the term of this Subcontract and for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this Subcontract.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 44

3. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST a) The Subcontractor represents that, to the best of the Subcontractor's knowl-

edge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances which could give rise to an organizational conflict of interest, or that the Subcontractor has disclosed all such relevant information.

b) The Subcontractor agrees that if an organizational conflict of interest is discovered after award, the Subcontractor will make a full disclosure in writing to the FHI 360 Contracting Officer. This disclosure will include a description of activities which the Subcontractor has taken or proposes to take, after consultation with the FHI 360 Contracting Officer, to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or potential conflict.

c) If the Subcontractor was aware of a potential organizational conflict of interest prior to award or discovered a conflict after award and did not disclose or misrepresented relevant information to the FHI 360 Contracting Officer, FHI 360 may terminate the Subcontract for default.

d) The Subcontractor further agrees to insert provisions which will conform substantially to the language of this clause, including this subparagraph (d), in any Subcontract or consultant agreement arising out of this Subcontract.

4. STANDARDS OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS CONDUCTThe Subcontractor acknowledges and accepts FHI 360’s emphasis on the importance of accountability to those who benefit from FHI 360’s work, and the parties’ mutual accountability to each other, to project collaborators, and to our sponsors. The Subcontractor confirms its accountability to children and to all others whom its programs are intended to serve. In the case of children, the Subcontractor will undertake to ensure that no individual with any history of crimes against children will be placed in a position involving direct interaction with children as part of the work under this Subcontract.The Subcontractor acknowledges that FHI 360 corporate policy requires that FHI 360’s activities be conducted within the letter and spirit of the law. The Subcontractor, including any of its affiliates and their respective employees, agents officers, or other members of its management will not make any payment, either directly or indirectly, of money or other assets to government or political party officials, candidates for public office, or representatives of other businesses or persons acting on behalf of any of the foregoing (referred to collectively as “officials”) where such payment would constitute a violation of any law. In addition, regardless of legality, the Subcontractor will make no payment either directly or indirectly to officials if such payment is for the purpose of influencing decisions or actions with respect to the subject matter of this Subcontract or any other aspect of FHI 360’s operations.

5. PROTECTION OF HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTSThe Subcontractor is responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in research under this Subcontract. When this Subcontract is funded with funds from a federal department or agency, the Subcontractor shall provide FHI 360 with written assurance satisfactory to the sponsoring federal department or agency that it will comply with the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects found in Part 225 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This policy applies to all research involving human subjects conducted, supported or otherwise subject to regulation by any federal department or agency including research that takes place in foreign countries. In the case of research conducted outside of the United States and remains subject to 22 CFR 225, the Subcontractor shall submit to the FHI 360 Technical Monitor written assurance that procedures followed by the USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 45

Subcontractor to protect human research subjects are at least equivalent to those in 22 CFR 225. In lieu of a written assurance, FHI 360 shall accept the existence of a current assurance, appropriate for the research in question, on file with the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, and approved for federal wide use by that office.

Any research supported under this Subcontract that will involve human subjects as defined in 22 CFR 225 shall not commence until the required assurance has been submitted to FHI 360 and Subcontractor has been notified in writing by the FHI 360 Technical Monitor that all other requisite approvals of the Subcontractor’s procedures pursuant to the protection of human research subjects have been obtained, as appropriate.

6. PATIENT CAREWhen the Subcontract involves patient care, the Subcontractor assumes full responsibility and liability for the care and treatment of its patients. To the extent that the training and other support provided to the Subcontractor by FHI 360-employed personnel under this Subcontract encompasses treatment of Subcontractor’s patients, the Subcontractor acknowledges and agrees as follows:(a) that the Subcontractor is ultimately responsible for such treatment;(b) that such treatment will be deemed to be done by and on behalf of the

Subcontractor;(c) that the Subcontractor waives any claim against FHI 360 and/or FHI 360-

employed personnel arising out of patient treatment;(d) that the Subcontractor will assume full responsibility for any claims made by patients arising out of patient treatment, whether patient treatment was provided by Subcontractor-employed personnel or by FHI 360-employed personnel; and,

(e) that the Subcontractor will hold FHI 360 harmless from any liability arising out of any assistance provided under the terms of this Subcontract.

7. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCEAcceptance of the effort specified in the Scope of Work will be made by FHI 360’s Technical Monitor or his/her authorized representative. FHI 360 has the right to inspect and evaluate the work performed under this Subcontract, and the premises where the work is being performed, at all reasonable times and in a manner that will not unduly delay the work.

8. CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONSAny proposed change to this Subcontract must be authorized by a written modification to this Subcontract before performance of work involved in the change may begin.

9. WORK PRODUCTS AND DELIVERABLES All work products and other deliverables including technical reports required under this Subcontract shall be submitted FHI 360 Technical Monitor. Notwithstanding any other payment provision of this Subcontract, failure of Subcontractor to submit required reports when due, or failure to perform or deliver required work, supplies, or services to the reasonable satisfaction of FHI 360’s Technical Monitor will result in the withholding of payment under the Subcontract unless such failure arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Subcontractor.


10. WORKING FILES AND DATASETS Subcontractor certifies that any working files maintained by Subcontractor including calculations, assumptions, interpretations of regulations, sources of information, and other raw data required in the performance of this Subcontract will be maintained in an accurate and complete manner. Upon request, Subcontractor will provide information contained in its working files to the FHI 360 Technical Monitor.

11. RECORD KEEPING AND ACCESSThe Subcontractor will maintain books, records, documents, program and individual service records and other evidence of its accounting and billing procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature incurred in the performance of this Subcontract. These records will be subject at all reasonable times to monitoring, inspection, review or audit by authorized employees or agents of FHI 360 or its funding sponsor. The Subcontractor will retain all such records concerning this Subcontract for a period of three (3) years after the submission of the final Subcontractor Monthly Financial Report, unless a longer period is specified in the specific terms and conditions of the Subcontract. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration date of this three-year period, the records will be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved.

12. PUBLICATIONUnless otherwise specified in this Subcontract, the Subcontractor is encouraged to publish the results of its work under this Subcontract. In the event the Subcontractor proposes any academic publication arising out of Subcontractor’s work under this Subcontract, Subcontractor will contact the FHI 360 Technical Monitor and request copies of FHI 360’s policies regarding publica-tion and authorship (POL 05004 and POL 05007). Subcontractor agrees to comply with the requirements of those policies.

Disclaimer. For both academic and non-academic publications resulting from work performed under this Subcontract, Subcontractor will include a disclaimer which is in substantially conformity with the following example:

“This publication was prepared under a Subcontract funded by Family Health International under Cooperative Agreement/Contract No. (insert Prime Award No.) funded by (insert name of funding sponsor). The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views, analysis or policies of FHI 360 or (insert name of funding sponsor), nor does any mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by FHI 360 or (insert name of funding sponsor).”

The Subcontractor will notify the FHI 360 Technical Monitor when any article, chapter or other publication is published, and will provide a copy of the published work to FHI 360.

13. TERMINATIONa) Termination. Funding for this Subcontract is contingent upon factors

including the availability of funds to FHI 360, satisfactory progress by Subcontractor, and overall direction of the program of which this Subcontract


is a part. FHI 360 may suspend or terminate this Subcontract in whole or in part, at any time, and for any reason, by providing five (5) days written notice of the effective date of the suspension or termination to Subcontractor. Subcontractor will be responsible for satisfying all of its obligations relative to this Subcontract through the effective date of termination. FHI 360 will only be responsible for costs incurred after the effective date of suspension or termination as follows: (a) FHI 360 expressly authorizes such costs in the notice of suspension or termination or subsequently in writing, or (b) the costs result from non-cancelable obligations that were properly incurred be-fore the effective date of suspension or termination, were incurred not in anticipation of the suspension or termination, and the costs would be allowable if the Subcontract were not suspended or expired normally at the end of the funding period in which the termination takes effect.

b) Terms upon Termination. Upon Termination, Subcontractor will:1.cease all work except to the extent that is minimally necessary to shut

down operations;2.return or provide to FHI 360 all materials and work product related to this

Subcontract; and,3.provide FHI 360 with such services related to the transfer of tasks under the

work statement to another Subcontractor as is specified by FHI 360 upon termination.

Subcontractor will be reimbursed for services provided up to the effective date of termination and any such transfer costs as are specified and approved in advance by FHI 360, provided such services are in accordance with the provisions of this Subcontract.

14. DISPUTESAll disputes and differences that may arise out of or in connection with the terms of this Subcontract will be settled by negotiations between the FHI 360 Contracting Officer and the Subcontractor’s duly authorized representative. For non-U.S. domiciled Subcontractors, disputes which remain unresolved after sixty (60) days will be settled by arbitration in London, England, U.K. in accordance with the international arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. For U.S. based Subcontractors, disputes which remain unresolved after sixty (60) days will be settled by arbitration in Raleigh, North Carolina, in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. An arbitration panel of three (3) arbitrators will be selected, with each party designating a single arbitrator. The arbitrators designated by the parties will select the third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel will be final. This Subcontract is governed by and construed under the laws of the State of North Carolina, U.S.A. The provisions of the United Nations Convention for the Interna-tional Sale of Goods are specifically excluded.

15. INDEMNIFICATIONThe Subcontractor will indemnify, defend, and hold FHI 360 (and its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees and agents) harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred or suffered by any of them that arise out of or relate, in whole or in part, to any actual or alleged act or omission by Subcontractor or its employees, agents or representatives in connection with the performance of any of the work specified in this Subcontract.


16. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSIONThe Subcontractor certifies that neither it nor its principals is presently excluded or disqualified from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.

17. TERRORIST FINANCINGThe Subcontractor will not engage in transactions with, or provide resources or support to individuals and organizations associated with terrorism, including those organizations and individuals identified in lists promulgated by the U.S. Government, the United Nations and the European Union. It is the legal responsibility of the Subcontractor to ensure compliance with these laws. This provision must be included in all lower tier subcontracts issued under this Subcontract.

18. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO DRUG TRAFFICKERSFHI 360 reserves the right to terminate this subcontract, to demand a refund or take measures if Subcontractor is found to have been, convicted of a narcotic offense or engaged in drug trafficking activities.

19. PROSTITUTION AND SEX TRAFFICKING None of the funds made available under this subcontract may be used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities, including test kits, condoms, and, when proven effective, microbicides.

If this subcontract is for the implementation of HIV/AIDS programs, and if the Subcontractor is a non-US organization, the Subcontractor agrees that it is opposed to the practices of prostitution and sex trafficking and hereby certifies that it does not and will not promote the legalization or decriminalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking. 20. PROHIBITION ON ABORTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES No funds made available under this subcontract will be used to finance, support, or be attributed to the following activities: 1. procurement or distribution of equipment intended to be used for the purpose

of inducing abortions as a method of family planning; 2. special fees or incentives to women to coerce or motivate them to have

abortions; 3. payments to persons to perform abortions or to solicit persons to undergo

abortions; 4. information, education, training, or communication programs that seek to

promote abortion as a method of family planning; or 5. lobbying for abortion.

No funds made available under this subcontract will be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates, in whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, abortions or involuntary sterilizations as a means of family planning. Epidemiologic or descriptive research to assess the incidence, extent or consequences of abortions is not precluded.

21. DELAYSWhenever Subcontractor knows, or reasonably should know, that any actual or potential condition is delaying, or threatens to delay, the timely performance of work under this Subcontract, Subcontractor will, within five (5) days, notify FHI 360’s Technical Monitor, in writing, providing all relevant information with respect to the delay.USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 49

22. VALIDITY AND WAIVERThe invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Subcontract will not affect the validity of other provisions. A waiver of a breach of any provision of this Subcontract will not constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach of that provision or a breach of any other provision of this Subcontract. The failure of FHI 360 to enforce at any time or from time to time any provision of this Subcontract will not be construed as a waiver of the provision.

23. BINDING EFFECT AND ASSIGNMENTThis Subcontract will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of FHI 360’s successors and assigns. This Subcontract may not be assigned by Subcontractor without the prior written consent of FHI 360’s Contracting Officer, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld.

24. ORDER OF PRECEDENCEAny conflict between any of the provisions and attachments to this Subcontract shall be resolved by applying the following order of precedence:1. Articles of this Subcontract;2. Scope of Work – Attachment A; 3. FHI 360 Terms and Conditions - Subcontracts; and4. Donor specific Terms and Conditions

FUNDING SPONSOR FLOW-DOWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS The USAID Standard Provision for Non-US Standard Provisions apply to this subcontract by reference. A copy of these provisions can be found under the following Link:

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1864/303mab.pdf

[END OF SECTION I]


SECTION J - List of Attachments

Attachment 1: Glossary of Terms and AcronymsAttachment 2: Reference LibraryAttachment 3: Evaluation Design MatrixAttachment 4: Key Evaluation Activities Attachment 5: USAID CIS Results FrameworkAttachment 6: USAID CIS Capacity Assessment ToolsAttachment 7: Capacity Development Program Interventions (Selected Descriptions)Attachment 8: Cost Proposal Fixed-Price TemplateAttachment 9: USAID CIS Branding and Marking Plan

[END OF SECTION J]


SECTION K – REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS

The Contractor shall complete electronic annual representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed via https://www.acquisition.gov.

The Contractor shall update the representations and certifications submitted to SAM as necessary, but at least annually, to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete. The representations and certifications are effective until one year from date of submission or update to SAM.

For USG-funded contracts and modifications to contracts, the Contractor [ ] has [ ] has not completed its annual representations and certifications in SAM.

**Contracts at or below JOD 17,700.00 awarded to foreign vendors for work performed outside the United States are exempt from the requirement above.

AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS

The Offeror or quoter represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this request for proposals or quotations: [list names, titles, and telephone numbers of the authorized negotiators]. _______________________________________________________________________

SIGNATUREBy signature hereon, or on an offer incorporating these Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, the offeror certifies that they are accurate, current, and complete, and that the offeror is aware of the penalty prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making false statements in offers.

Solicitation No. _______________________________________Offer/Proposal No. ____________________________________Date of Offer _________________________________________Name of Offeror_______________________________________Typed Name and Title__________________________________

[END OF SECTION K]


SECTION L. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. Number of Awards. FHI 360 anticipates one award as a result of this Solicitation.

b. RFP Instructions. If an Offeror does not follow the instructions set forth herein, the Offeror's proposal may be eliminated from further consideration or the proposal may be down-graded and not receive full or partial credit under the applicable evaluation criteria.

A Solicitation Workshop will be arranged by USAID CIS on September 24, 2017 at 10:00 am at (the USAID CIS Office, 38 Suleiman Al Hadidi Street, Um Uthaina to explain the solicitation requirements and to clarify ambiguities in the scope of work. All Questions and Answers received before or during the Solicitation Workshop will be answered and distributed to all prospective offerors. Note that questions and answers discussed during the Solicitation Workshop are not valid responses until they are distributed by FHI 360 in writing.

c. Offer Acceptability. FHI 360 may determine an offer to be unacceptable if the offer does not comply with all of the terms and conditions of the RFP and prospective contract:

(1) Submission of proposed costs/prices information as required by Section B and L of this RFP;

(2) Completion of electronic annual representations and certifications at SAM accessed via https://www.acquisition.gov as well as any other "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors" in Section H; and

(3) Submission of information required by Section B or any other section of this RFP. The submission of these items in accordance with these instructions will, if FHI 360 accepts the offer, contractually bind the FHI 360 and the successful Offeror to the terms and conditions of the prospective contract. Offerors must follow the instructions contained in this RFP and supply all information and signature/certifications, as required.

L.2. DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

a. Due Date for Questions

Due date for questions regarding this RFP must be made in writing by email no later than September 26, 2017 at 4:00pm and e-mailed to: [email protected]. Clarifications will be provided via email by September 28, 2017 by 4:00 PM. No clarifications will be offered by phone or in any way other than by email. Any additional information given to a potential Offeror will be considered an amendment to this RFP.

b. Submission of Offer

The offer must be delivered via e-mail, on or before October 12, 2017 by noon:

USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program, Attn: Procurement Department38 Suleiman Al Hadidi Street, Um Uthaina, Amman, JordanTel.: +962 6 5933116; Fax: +962 6 5934554;



E-mail: [email protected]

Offers received after the exact date and time specified will not be considered. All risks of late e-mail shall be borne by the Offeror. After review and scoring, Offerors will be informed of the status of offers.

c. Award Timeline

Notification of Short-Listed Offerors: October _19__, 2017 Notification of the Offeror: October __26_, 2017 Award Negotiation Period: October _29__-_November 9__, 2017Expect to Award by: November _26__, 2017

L.3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSAL

a. Technical Proposal

Interested Offerors shall respond to the RFP with a Technical Proposal that elaborates Offeror’s proposal for the most effective and efficient way to accomplish the overall Activity and component Sub-Tasks. It should be organized by the technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M:

Technical Approach Management and Administration Experience, Past Performance, and Qualifications Key Personnel and Staffing Plan

The technical proposal should include the information set forth below. Offerors should address each item in full. Proposals must be clearly and concisely written and must describe and define the Offeror's understanding and compliance with the requirements contained in this RFP. Detailed information should be presented only when required by specific RFP instructions. Key personnel CVs should not be longer than two pages each. Past performance references required by this section shall be included as an annex or attachment of the technical proposal.

Offerors should pay particular attention to the Evaluation Criteria to address each item thereof. Proposals must be clearly and concisely written and must describe and define the Offeror's understanding and compliance with the requirements contained in the Statement of Work found in Section C.

Offerors should submit their best proposals initially as the FHI 360 reserves the right to evaluate proposals and make an award without discussions (except clarifications). Additionally, the FHI 360 reserves the right to conduct discussions should the Contracting Officer deem it necessary.

The technical proposal shall be entirely separate from the cost proposal, and the technical proposal content must not include cost information.

The technical proposal shall at a minimum include the following information according to the specified page limits (page limits do not include attachments). If required information is omitted from the technical proposal, Offerors will not receive any points according to the evaluation criteria (see Section M).

Part 1: Technical Approach (8 pages, including concept notes)USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 54


Context : Demonstrate your understanding of organizational capacity development in Jordan and the initial analytic framework presented in Section C.1.b and propose any suggested changes. Illustrate your understanding by answering the following questions:1. How do you perceive the role of capacity development contributing to

the future of civil society in Jordan?2. What methods can be used to ensure this evaluation process is in line

with the HRBA and is gender-sensitive? 3. What types of changes in capacity and performance might be realistic

to expect after a CBO takes part in training and coaching on one of the following topics: good governance, strategic planning, or financial management?

4. Reflecting on the answer to question #3, develop 3-5 sub-questions that would help to capture the spectrum of changes in performance.

Sub-Task Concept Notes (2 pages per concept note) : The concept note is an overview describing the initial approach toward the evaluation of each Sub-Task, taking into consideration the evaluation period of performance. Each Concept Note shall include the following information:o Describe your unique technical value and positioning to carry out the

Sub-Task. o Provide a summary of the proposed Sub-Task evaluation design;

additions or changes to the main evaluation questions in Section C.1.d; illustrative sampling plan; data collection methods and tools; data analysis techniques; and reporting.

o Describe potential evaluation limitations/biases and suggested responses.

**Note** One Concept Note is to be created for each Sub-Task. The Offeror shall submit a total of three Concept Notes.

Part 2: Management and Administration (3 pages) Planning and implementation : Provide an overview of the approach to

planning and implementing an Activity of this complexity and scope, including a brief description of key management and administration tasks. Explain start-up priorities and how these will be addressed; timeline/sequencing of Sub-Tasks; coordination of efforts across Sub-Tasks; measures to maximize technical efficiency and value for money (due to similarity of Sub-Task activities, for example); and how consistency and quality of work will be maintained across Sub-Tasks.

Organizational capacity : Describe the capacity that will enable management and implementation of two or more Sub-Tasks at the same time within the specified period of performance. Describe capacity to capture, transcribe and translate data.

Timetable and availability : Provide a timetable for implementing this Activity, including Sub-Task activities and management and administration activities (see indicative timeline in Section C.1.h). Specify deliverable due dates. Confirm availability to provide required services during the stated evaluation period of performance.

Part 3: Experience, Past Performance, and Qualifications (2 pages) Experience: Describe relevant past experience, highlighting any thematic

expertise (Jordanian civil society, organizational capacity development, human rights, gender, etc.) and specific accomplishments.

Past performance & Qualifications : Provide a list of previous evaluation services provided during the last five (5) years, including client name and summary of the assignment (“Capabilities Statement”).


Sample of Previous Work : Submit at least one example of relevant past work, preferably a civil society-related evaluation or institutional capacity assessment.

References : Provide complete and up-to-date contact information for at least three previous clients, including contact name, address, e-mail and telephone numbers.

Part 4: Key Personnel and Staffing Plan (2 pages) Staffing plan : Define and propose team(s) with appropriate qualifications

and necessary range of skills. Describe key personnel, along with associated areas of expertise and roles. Provide evidence of capability to recruit and manage a qualified staff to implement two or more Sub-Tasks simultaneously. Confirm that adequate staffing can be mobilized within the timeframe to comply with the period of performance specified in Section B.

Organizational chart : Provide an organizational chart illustrating the team(s) for all three Sub-Tasks, including the name and position of each team member.

Curriculum vitae (CVs) : Attach CVs for proposed key personnel. Each CV should be no more than two pages in length.

Technical Proposal PackagingThe Concept Notes should be included in the Technical Proposal narrative (Part I: Technical Approach) with each Concept Note placed in a separate sub-section. The narrative shall include a table of contents and a list of attachments.

b. Cost Proposal

Utilizing Attachment 8: Cost Proposal Fixed-Price Template, offerors shall submit a cost proposal for a fixed price per the deliverables listed in Table 9: Subcontract Administration and Sub-Task Deliverables and reflected in the attachment.

No cost information or any prices, whether for deliverables or line items, may be included in the Technical Proposal. Cost information must only be shown in the Cost Proposal. There shall be no Indirect Costs charged under this Subcontract.

Attachment 8: Cost Proposal Fixed-Price Template, includes 6,000 JOD for transportation costs. This is a placeholder amount for transportation costs, as the actual cost will be determined once the number and location of external research activities are defined. The successful offeror will then submit a transportation plan utilizing USAID CIS’ approved transportation rates (to be provided upon award). USAID CIS will reimburse the successful offeror for transportation fees based on actual transportation cost provided with submission of a signed fee payment request supported by signed receipt(s) from the end recipients, and supported by an attendance sheet and agenda.

[END OF SECTION L]


SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

a. FHI 360 intends to evaluate Offerors in accordance with this section of the RFP and make a contract award to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the highest score from the Evaluation Committee.

b. The submitted technical information will be evaluated by a technical evaluation committee using the technical criteria shown below.

c. For overall evaluation purposes, technical factors are considered significantly more important than cost/price factors.

In the Technical Proposal, Offerors must demonstrate capacity for the following preferred qualifications, as fully specified in Section C.3.a:

Have successfully provided evaluation services for the Jordanian development sector within the past five years.

Demonstrated technical expertise, including clear understanding of context and Sub-Task design considerations

Sufficient range, capacity and experience to successfully carry out the Activity, including sound approach to planning and implementation, organizational capacity, and realistic and achievable timeline.

Experience and qualifications appropriate to high-quality management and implementation, evidenced by strong past performance, previous work, and references.

Staff configuration and personnel are appropriate and compliant with managerial and technical requirements, including sound staffing plan and qualified key personnel.

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The criteria listed below are presented by major category, so that Offerors shall know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of information. Offerors should note that the following criteria serve to (a) identify significant matters that should be addressed in proposals and (b) set the standard against which all proposals shall be evaluated. The merits of the proposal shall be evaluated carefully.

The following criteria shall be applied in the evaluation of the proposal.

Technical Approach (including Concept Notes) 40Management and Administration 15Experience, Past Performance and Qualifications 15Key Personnel and Staffing Plan 20Cost 10Total 100

The following is the criterion by which the above criteria will be judged.

Part 1: Technical Approach. The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the technical approach.

Context : Demonstrated understanding of organizational capacity development in Jordan and evaluation’s analytic framework; functional grasp of gender-responsive, participatory and learning techniques.


Sub-Task Concept Notes : Unique technical value and positioning; Sub-Task team composition and key personnel; quality of initial approach to Sub-Task design.

Part 2: Management and Administration Plan. The proposal demonstrates sufficient range, capacity and experience to successfully carry out the Activity.

Planning and implementation : Sound approach to executing an Activity of this complexity and scope; appropriate supervision and quality control to achieve the tasks efficiently and effectively and maintain consistency across Sub-Tasks.

Organizational capacity : Capacity to manage and implement two or more Sub-Tasks at the same time within specified period of performance; capacity to capture, transcribe and translate data.

Timetable and availability : Realistic and achievable timeline and sequencing and demonstrated availability to carry out work within specified period of performance.

Part 3: Experience, Past Performance, and Qualifications. The proposal demonstrates experience, past performance, and qualifications appropriate to high-quality management and implementation of the work.

Past performance : Suitability of past performance; demonstration of sufficient and appropriate capabilities (Capabilities Statement). Quality of offeror’s past performance per work sample submitted. FHI 360 may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

Experience & Qualifications : Relevance and quality of past work, including thematic expertise (Jordanian civil society, organizational capacity development, human rights, gender, etc.) and specific accomplishments.

Part 4: Key Personnel and Staffing Plan. Proposed staff configuration and personnel are appropriate and compliant with managerial and technical requirements.

Staffing plan : Key personnel and other core staff meet the minimum requirements and are qualified to manage and execute an Activity of this complexity and scope

Organizational chart : Organization of staff is suitable to an Activity of this complexity and scope. Sufficient personnel capacity to staff at least two (2) simultaneous Sub-Tasks.

Curriculum vitae (CVs) : Demonstration of required qualifications.

Part 5: Cost. The costs allowable must be limited to reasonable, allocable, and allowable costs determined in accordance with the U.S. government cost principles, rules and regulations.

M.3. DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGE

Should FHI 360 determine 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 USAID CIS, RFP # 031/2017 Capacity Development Evaluation Support, FINAL, Sept 17, 2017, pg. 58

to award one or more contracts under this RFP on the basis of initial offers without discussions or without establishing a competitive range.

Any such shortlisted proposals shall be invited to meet with the USAID CIS selection committee for an oral presentation of key points laid out in the proposal, followed by a question-and-answer period with the committee. For this, the offeror will create one (1) PowerPoint slideshow that provides a short, clear presentation of their approach to respond to the RFP. A maximum of one hour shall be allocated for each short-listed Offeror’s presentation and discussion.

The final award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of this RFP and scored the highest from the evaluation committee.

[END OF SECTION M]

END OF RFP
