January 15, 2010

Reference:Office of Development Partners – Private and Voluntary Cooperation

RFA #:RFA-OAA-10-000001

“Development and Expansion of Economic Assistance Programs That Fully Utilize Cooperatives and Credit Unions”

Subject: Amendment 01

Dear Applicants,

The purpose of this Amendment 01 is to:

1)Make changes to the wording of the RFA.

2)Publish Questions and Answers submitted via email and at the Pre-Application Conference of January 12, 2010.

Please see the following pages for the changes this Amendment makes to the specific sections. Please direct any questions to the Agreement Specialist, Rod Watson at .

Sincerely,

/s/

Portia Persley

Agreement Officer

US Agency for International Development

Office of Acquisition and Assistance

M/OAA/GRO/EGAS

Amendment 1 to Request for Applications (RFA) Number #: RFA-OAA-10-000001

Development and Expansion of Economic Assistance Programs That Fully Utilize Cooperatives and Credit Unions

The purpose of this amendment is to:

I. Make changes to the wording of the RFA

II. Respond to questions submitted on the RFA

I. Make changes to the wording of the RFA

1)page 36, Section C(A),Category- “Evaluation.”Delete this section in its entirety and replace with the following in lieu thereof (which includes a numbering sequence):

Evaluation[1] / 5 / #
Evaluation is complete: all annual work plan objectives were identified and actual achievements presented / 13.1
Documentation: assertions regarding performance, external conditions, corrective actions, etc., must be documented with clear references to source documentation or records. / 13.2
Identification of reasons for success and reasons for shortcoming should include analysis of: (a) design/strategy; planning assumptions; personnel performance; foreseen/unforeseen factors; other / 13.3
Clear statement of corrective actions taken/to be taken / 13.4
Clear statement of lessons learned and how these were applied to the project, to other cooperative development projects / 13.5
How evaluation findings have been applied to the present application. / 13.6

2)page 14, Section A(2)(C)(5) “PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS” – delete in its entirety and replace with the following in lieu thereof:

“Provide proof of receipt, by the concerned Mission/s, of your letter of proposed field activities.”

3)page 80, Annex C, “Technical Application Summary Format,” sentence one. Delete “FY 2009”insert “FY 2010.”

II. Respond to questions submitted on the RFA

Strategic Priorities

The highest priority USAID priority objective for the proposed program of activities is the Global Engagement Initiative, yet very little public information exists about it. Please answer the following questions about it:

  1. Is there a source for more detail as to how this initiative will be formulated and carried out?

No, USAID has no further details on the Global Engagement Initiative (GEI) to share at this time.

  1. The cover letter lists Afghanistan and Pakistan (apparently separate from the Global Engagement Initiative) but the RFA does not specifically mention those two countries. Are they priorities as part of the Global Engagement Initiative or not? Is there greater priority placed on these two countries?

Afghanistan and Pakistan are priority countries for the Agency. It is our understanding that while USAID/Afghanistan is receptive to the Cooperative Development Program, USAID/Pakistan has declined.

  1. Will applications targeting Global Engagement Initiative or ODP/PVC priority countries, be awarded more points than applications targeting other USAID-eligible countries and objectives?

Please refer to Section C “SELECTION CRITERIA” presented in the RFA, pp 33-38. If points are not mentioned for an item, that item cannot be considered during the review process. If something is mentioned, then it will be considered.

  1. Under the Global Engagement Initiative, is work conducted in any predominantly Muslim country deemed to satisfy the objective of alignment with the Global Engagement Initiative?

It would be difficult at this stage to presume what would or would not be considered as satisfying alignment with the Global Engagement Initiative. Please refer to the criteria.

5.The Human and Institutional Capacity Development Policy is a new requirement. Is this a policy that encompasses all of USAID’s key strategic objectives? Could a more complete explanation of the policy and requirements in the RFA be given to CDOs?

The Policy is a Mandatory Reference for USAID ADS Chapter 201 (Planning). It is relevant to all USAID programs and projects. The link is .

Mission involvement

There are several questions/confirmations concerning mission involvement in the application process. These include:

  1. Please clarify whether the appropriate date for submission to each mission is February 11th or 12th.

Submissions to the Mission should precede the application, so they should be sent no later thanFebruary 11, 2010. USAID encourages early submission.

  1. Please confirm that evidence of transmission by stated date is acceptable (e.g. express mail receipt or copy of the e-mail), and that it is not necessary to have the response from the mission by the date of submission of the application.

Evidence of transmission is acceptable. No response from the Mission is required at the time the application is submitted. Please do note that no countryactivity will be funded without Mission concurrence.

  1. Page 17 of the RFA states, “Each applicant…is expected to propose an activity or activities that: (1) address a USAID Agency priority as reflected in Bureau/Mission Operational Plans.” USAID’s website ( makes available Mission Operational Plans from 2006.” Would it be possible, where more recent Mission Operational Plans exist, for USAID to make these available to applicants? While the most up to date resource on mission priorities and activities is on the corresponding USAID mission Web sites, their detailed operational plans are not available.

If you visit the website of a Mission, you may be able to access the current activities. In addition mission specific programs and budget information is available from the FY2010Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) (refer to Question 14 for a link to the CBJ). The planning process has undergone/is undergoing changes, so you may have to discuss the current status of planning with the concerned Missions.

  1. With regards to Selection Criterion 11.1, could USAID please confirm that points will not be deducted from an application if USAID Mission concurrence is not included in the application provided that the applicant meets the requirement of providing evidence of transmittal to relevant Missions?

We can confirm that Mission concurrence does not need to be included with the application. Evaluation of all applications will be conducted in accordance with the selection criteria in Section C. of the RFA

  1. Annex I seems not to contain the address of contact information for USAID/Uganda. Could this please be provided?

USAID/Uganda U.S.Mission Compound - South Wing
Plot 1577 Ggaba Road
P.O. Box 7856
Kampala, Uganda
Tel. (256) 0414-306-001

Krista A. Desgranges Desk Officer

202-712-0410

Please take heed of the statement at the bottom of Annex I. As shown below:

“Please note that personnel as well as addresses can change. It is the applicant’s responsibility to verify that addresses are correct and totake all reasonable steps to ensure that they successfully transmit their application to all concerned USAID Missions.”

Collaboration

11.There are several areas where collaboration is encouraged or required, although several of the instructions appear to be slightly inconsistent. On page 14, Section C. 2, there appears to be a choice between working on one of the USAID agency priorities or one of the major cooperative development challenges presented in the RFA. However, the instructions in the first full paragraph on page 17 seem to mandate that both USAID key priorities and key issues must be addressed. Please advise whether working on either of these strategies will satisfy the collaboration requirement, and reiterate the mandatory nature of the collaborative efforts.

Working on both USAID Key Priorities and Key Issues is required. The latter should be related to the former. The underlying assumption is that the capacity of cooperatives to contribute significantly to key priorities is resolving some of the key challenges they face with regard to law and regulation, governance, planning, achieving scale, etc.

Priority Countries

12.The list of ODP priority countries in Annex H is more limited than the country addresses Included in Annex I. Is the list in Annex H the preferred country list? Will applications targeting these countries receive additional points? Please clarify the emphasis being placed on priority countries and how it will be applied.

The list of priority countries in Annex H has been provided by the concerned Bureaus. The List in Annex I attempted to include all countries where USAID works. Also, please do not request information that is not public. The USAID Agency website () has detailed information and links to Mission websites. Almost all public information can be accessed through these sites.

13.The list in Annex H does not include Afghanistan and Pakistan which are explicitly mentioned in the cover letter as priorities. Are they priority countries or not?

Please refer to Question 2.

14.Statements in RFA that say that various strategic issues have not yet identified the priority countries. How can applicants anticipate which countries will be included as priorities under alternative strategies?

Please check Mission websites. Please also refer to the USAID Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) for 2010. The CBJ can be accessed at:

Book 1:

Book 2:

Tables:

Evaluations

  1. Interim evaluation is directed to be conducted not later than 18 months after project start. This seems rather soon after project start. Wouldn’t 24-36 months be more appropriate?

No, if we assume a processing time for an evaluation to be 8 to 12 months from scope to delivery, an evaluation initiated in the 24th month would be available sometime in the 3rd year; one in the 36th month, in the fourth. The key design elements should be adequately underway after 18 months to permit judgments on any changes required.

  1. Do we need to propose the people we plan on using for the mid-term and final evaluations? Given the fact that evaluations will be conducted two to five years in the future, it seems unreasonable to identify those people in the proposal.

There is no need to include people for these positions when you submit your applications unless you have already identified them and choose to do so.

Performance planning

  1. The links to sample performance planning matrices don’t work. Please provide access to these resources or indicate a preferred format to be used.

The following are working links. There is no preferred format. You should choose a format that meets your needs as an organization, i.e. one that allows you to plan and monitor.

,

  1. Selection Criterion 1.5 presented on page 33 of the RFA references a “performance plan.” Are the expectations of the “performance plan” identical to the Monitoring and Evaluation elements listed in the Technical Application Guidelines on page 29 of the RFA?

The performance plan is the enumeration and sequencing of activities that are planned to achieve the objectives specified. Monitoring and evaluation relates to the regular assessment of achievements relative to the performance plan.

Budget and Cost proposal

  1. It is our understanding that the total funding is comprised of increased levels of funding directed by Congress in the first two years of the program, followed by decreased levels of funding in the remaining years. Could you please confirm that budgets may, but need not, be prepared with higher levels of funding in the first two years?

The funding for the first two years should be assumed to be $14.2 million.

  1. Is there a cap on an acceptable level of funding per grant?

No.

  1. In box 11 and 12 in Annex C (Technical Application Summary Format), where should Administrative Cost be listed? USAID seems to want life of funding project costs listed by country. If that is the case, should Administrative costs be incorporated into each individual country? Or can Admin costs be budgeted separate from country costs? How does USAID want Admin costs reflected in box 11?

USAID confirms that Administrative costs (also known as Other than Direct Costs) not included in the applicants Indirect Costs should be included in box 11. Applicants should present these costs separate from all Direct Costs per country.

  1. In point #3 (a and c) of the Cost Application page 30 of the RFA, USAID requests that the Program component be taken from SF424a lines a+b+c+h and Training be taken from SF424 line h. This seems to double count line h. If it doesn’t, please ask that he clarify.

Yes Line H should include Training costs. The information presented on page 30 demonstrates how USAID will arrive at summary totals such as “Program Costs” and “Procurement Costs” for the purpose of cost realism analysis. This does not impact how the SF-424 budget line items will be totaled or imply any double counting.

  1. In point #3 (a) of the Cost Application page 30 of the RFA, USAID wants Personnel, Fringe, and Travel costs to be listed under the major budget category of Program. However, under Training as we all know, there will also be Personnel, Fringe, and Travel costs. How do we segregate and budget for Personnel, Fringe, Travel, and other costs related to Training?

All training related costs should be presented under Line H. In the detailed budget for Line H applicants must show all of the sub-line items for Training costs.

  1. In the cost application, do letters of commitment refer to those from key personnel or do they refer to partner organizations?

Both are desirable, but letters of commitment from partner organizations are required in accordance with Section B(B)(4.0)(4.4).

  1. The programmatic intent for add-on support appears to lend itself more towards the definition of Leveraging. Would USAID consider accepting Leveraging in lieu of Cost Share?

No. In accordance with Section B(C)(6), USAID requires cost-share of “20 percent or more of the award.”

  1. Selection Criterion 10.2 states that the budget and notes must meet the standards described in OMB Circular A-122 for non-profit organizations. As the RFA’s cover letter correctly points out, for-profit organizations are subject to FAR part 31. Would USAID consider amending this selection criterion to allow for-profit organizations to be evaluated in accordance with the regulations that govern their financial obligations?

No, the criteria will not be revised. In Criterion 10.2 USAID states“…and conform with applicable U.S. Government and USAID regulations” which is inclusive of for-profit firms and the application of FAR 31 in assessing cost as stated in the RFA cover letter.

Others

  1. Will USAID consider an extension of the due date until Friday, February 19, 2010?

No.

  1. What is the geographic code and can we expect the possibility for different codes for different countries or regions?

Please refer to the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS), accessible at the USAID website, Section 260.3.1 ff, which provides the codes. Please follow the link

  1. PPRs: In terms of past performance, please clarify that a list of externally funded activities for the previous three years as stated on p.37 is sufficient and can be included in an Annex to the proposal

Yes, provided the list includes a brief description of the activity and a person who can be contacted regarding the applicant’s performance.

  1. Monitoring & Evaluation: Please clarify the question posed in 3.5.3 of the technical proposal guidelines regarding “acceptable variation from the standard”.

Recognizing that setting targets such as those called for by standardized indicators is an attempt to predict an unknown future, you should indicate what degree of shortcoming is acceptable, i.e. would not compromise or jeopardize the overall objectives.

  1. Staffing section - what level of detail is needed?

Please See Section C(A)“Management and personnel” criteria for Guidance. You need only include key personnel as described. What is requested is a clear description of achievements that demonstrates that the individual has the ability to perform the requirements of their position.

  1. Page 17 makes a reference to coop framework, is this requirement to administer the METRICS survey? Experience has shown that this is a labor intensive process. One coop can take days to complete. In Annex, it looks as though it must be administered to all coops CDO work with. Clarify if this is expected as part of the proposal development process. Can we use the concepts or must the survey be administered as is?

We believe that it is useful for USAID as well as for individual participants in the Cooperative Development Program to use equivalent measures for cooperative performance and for diagnosis of cooperative performance problems. It is recognized that there are sectoral differences and that some applicants may have developed an alternative approach to measuring performance. If your organization would prefer to employ a different approach, we would request you to include the details of that approach in your application along with a justification for using that instead of METRICS. If you plan to use METRICS plus a sector-specific approach, there is not need for a justification.

  1. Indicators- not many of the indicators that the OCDC Development Committee developed and proposed in October were included. Can we submit additional customized indicators?

Yes, provided that they are appropriate to your proposed objectives and measurable and provided that they are appropriate to the relevant program area, element and sub-element.

  1. Please provide more information on the nature of alliances with international counterparts. What is expected in this regard?

International counterparts might include cooperative development organizations in other countries such as the Canadian Cooperative Association, the International Reiffeissen Union, etc. This is not a requirement; it is an option.

  1. Selection Criterion 12.3 on page 37 of the RFA requires an “Activity/Implementation Plan.” Could USAID please elaborate on whether applicants are expected to submit a chart or graphic work plan in an Annex or whether a narrative description of the proposed strategies and activities meets this criterion?

The plan should include measurable results, both interim and final estimated dates, and be clearly contributive to the overall objectives proposed. If you feel a chart is useful, include one. However, if you include a chart or other visual representation, please ensure that it is consistent with the narrative. The most important criterion is that the chart be useful to your organization both as a plan, as a means of tracking performance, and as a catalyst for learning.