REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)USAID LOCAL ENTERPRISE SUPPORT PROGRAM (USAID LENS)

Formative Evaluation of Micro-Franchising in Jordan

RFP Date of Issuance: 12 November 2018

RFP # and Title 11122018 - Formative Evaluation of Micro-Franchising in Jordan

Due Date for Questions: 14 November 2018 Submission of questions or requests for clarification in writing via email

to RFP@jordanlens.org by 16:00 Hours local time in Jordan. Please note that inquiries and answers to inquiries will be shared with all

registered Offerors. Please do not contact any USAID LENS employees regarding this RFP.

Contacting individual employees shall be cause for disqualification. NO TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL BE ANSWERED. Answers to be shared on USAID LENS website www.jordanlens.org on 15

November 2018 Deadline for Proposals: 25 November 2018

Proposal submission (including technical proposal and budget, supporting documentation) due by 14:00 Hours (Amman, Jordan time) via email to RFP@jordanlens.org . Insert the following in the subject line: “Formative Evaluation of Micro-Franchising in Jordan”

Anticipated Start Date:

Anticipated Period of Performance:

Budget ceiling:

January 2018. (Start date is subject to change)

17 weeks

USAID LENS Project anticipates awarding a fixed-price contract with an estimated cost not exceeding JD 32,000. Revealing the estimated cost ceiling does not mean Offeror1 should strive to meet this maximum amount. Offerors must propose costs they believe are realistic and reasonable for the work.

Authorized Geographic Code:

The authorized geographic code for this procurement is USAID Geographic Code 937 (Jordan, the United States, and developing countries, other than advanced developing countries and excluding prohibited sources2).

Statement of Work (SOW)

1. Purpose Statement

FHI 360, represented by USAID LENS, represented by USAID LENS, seeks to implement a formative evaluation of micro-franchising in Jordan.

2. Program Background

2.1 Overview of USAID LENS

1 Offeror refers to companies or individual consultants that are offering to implement the work outlined in this RFP, and will be used throughout this document.2 For USAID’s list of developing countries, please see http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1876/310maa.pdf

P a g e 1 | 20

The USAID Jordan Local Enterprise Support Project (USAID LENS) Award No. AID 278 LA 14 00001 is a five-year project to encourage the long-term economic growth and development potential of underserved Jordanian communities. The project helps empower local communities to design and implement collaborative local economic development (LED) initiatives and will support the vitality and competitiveness of micro and small enterprises (MSEs) that are often at the heart of individual, family and community livelihood within vulnerable populations. In its inter-related activities, the project will work with public and private sector partners at the municipal, governorate and national levels to develop local environments conducive to investment and MSE growth.

For further information about USAID LENS, please see www.jordanlens.org

2.2 Overview of the Micro-franchising ActivityUSAID LENS conducted an assessment of micro-franchising in 2017 to gauge the model’s potential for social and economic development in Jordan. The Micro-Franchising Model (MFM) seeks to offer an option for employment by providing people without an entrepreneurial background a business blue-print through which they can improve their business’ marketing, standards and overall customer service. The model represents an opportunity for micro- and small enterprises (MSEs) to become more widely recognized for their quality and capacity to serve a more diverse set of customers and expand into new markets. It stands apart from other business growth blueprint emphasizing the systemization and replication of micro-enterprises and their supply chain.

Following up on the assessment USAID LENS is now implementing three micro-franchising pilot projects, as per the below:

1) Pilot Profile #1: Kama Local GourmetKama is a woman-owned Jordanian company that packages and sells quality culinary products from the Middle East. Kama is committed to becoming the leading brand for specialty foods from Jordan, and ultimately, the Middle East. The company prides itself on supporting local delicacies, providing access to unique Middle Eastern flavors to a customer base of food lovers, curious travelers and global dreamers. The USAID LENS micro-franchising pilot with Kama is supporting women producers to upgrade their products and access new markets.

Kama currently sells through direct, retail and wholesale channels. The company serves 20 Jordanian blue chip clients (e.g. Zain, Bank al-Etihad, and Taj Mall) with gift products, and is currently working on extending its regional and international reach.

USAID LENS is supporting Kama to establish a Supply Side Micro-Franchise Model, whereby all locally sourced items for Kama are supplied through a network of approved micro-franchisees. Those include pre-trained and licensed home-based businesses and/or production kitchens located in remote underserved governorates. Suppliers, all of whom are women, receive training, standard operating procedures and research and development capabilities, and equipment specifications, all monitored through rigid quality assurance measures. During the pilot phase, Kama is setting up over 11 micro-franchisees in Zarqa and Karak, annually supplying approximately 15,000 jars of a total of 16 different products. Franchisees are expected to generate an average income of 300 JODs per month.

P a g e 2 | 20

2) Pilot Profile #2: Jolie Femme Mini SalonsJolie Femme, a women-owned beauty and care company, operates two full-service, highly sophisticated and fully equipped beauty salons located in the most luxurious areas of Amman. This women-owned business also operates the Jolie Femme Academy in Khalda; the only City and Guilds Accredited Academy for beauty and care services in Jordan. Every month the Academy trains and graduates dozens of young men and women from disadvantaged communities. Unfortunately, these graduates are not able to find jobs in existing salons in Amman. At the same time, the company’s market analysis suggested that there are untapped opportunities in smaller villages and cities, which do not have quality hairdressing salons, forcing hundreds of women and girls to travel to Amman to procure services at relatively high prices. Through the USAID LENS pilot, Jolie Femme is launching a micro-franchise of mini salons to enable ambitious, skilled graduates to open salons in their home towns.

During the pilot phase, Jolie Femme plans to open three salons in Queirah, Karak, and Aqaba. Each franchise is expected to employ at least three women during the first year. The activity will include developing and institutionalizing a front facing micro-franchising model to ensure standardization and successful replication of franchisee agreements.

3) Pilot Profile #3: The Business Hub Kiosk, by MIGRATEMIGRATE is a business knowledge and networking company with a network of clients across Jordan and the broader MENA region. The company provides clients with business solutions to support expansion to new markets in the region, while reducing costs and risks. The Business Hub Kiosk serves as a one-stop-shop to help companies find and promote business opportunities and access the local business-to-business (B2B) service market. Through the USAID LENS pilot, MIGRATE is establishing Business Hub Kiosks in remote cities and areas, creating self-employment opportunities while fueling local economic development in underserved communities.

During the pilot phase, the company will establish three micro-franchise kiosks (in Irbid, Mafraq and Zarqa -Azraq). Each Kiosk will offer membership services, as well as walk-in services, to local enterprises. One-stop shop service offerings will include B2B matchmaking and referrals to a proprietary database of service providers from across the broader MIGRATE network; virtual representation (address, mail receipt, signage, physical representation by support staff); flexible access to desk space or meeting rooms; business administrative services such as data entry, research, and translation; and printing/scanning/faxing. As they develop further, the kiosks will create a portal through which local companies can access service providers and markets in other kiosk locations. Each kiosk is expected to create direct self-employment opportunities, plus six supporting jobs in the first year

4) A fourth and yet un-awarded pilot is anticipated to be awarded in November 2018.

The overarching development hypothesis is that a micro-franchising model can help accelerate economic growth for existing micro- and small enterprises (MSEs) and support job creation in the Jordanian economy.

3. Objectives The present evaluation micro-franchising targets three broad areas of inquiry: assessing the impact of the micro-franchising model (MFM) on micro-franchisors, assessing the impact of the model on micro-franchisees, and gathering evidence in support (or against) a micro-franchising incubator-accelerator. As the concept is relatively new in Jordan, the pool evidence is limited. The nature of this internal evaluation is therefore mostly formative and explorative, aimed at building evidence in support of further work in

P a g e 3 | 20

the future. To the extent that existing micro-franchising pilots have been pursued USAID LENS work as its evidence based, the evaluation may help to assess the impact that the pilots have had. However, this is not the primary objective, as the present study is formative in nature, rather a performance evaluation (PE) or impact evaluation (IE).

The research will be a collaboration between the winning bidder and USAID LENS staff, with the final report being co-authored by individual from both parties. As such, the engagement is not meant to be structured in such a way to be independent (as a performance evaluation might be).

Who needs the information and why do they need it? USAID LENS and the USAID Jordan mission Project partners and interested parties An unnamed institution interested in hosting the micro-franchising support model after USAID

LENS closes in late 2019.

3.1 Evaluation ContrastsThe structure of the study will follow six broad lines of comparative inquiry:

A1: Comparing micro-franchisors to similar businesses wishing to expand3

A2: Comparing micro-franchisors to traditional franchisorsB1: Comparing micro-franchisees to similar startupsB2: Comparing micro-franchisees to traditional franchiseesC1: Comparing a supported micro-franchise environment4 (SMFE) to an unsupported environmentC2: Comparing a micro-franchise incubator-accelerator to a traditional incubator-accelerator

3.2 Evaluation QuestionsA. Impact of the Micro-Franchising Model (MFM) on Micro-Franchisors…

A1. … compared to businesses wishing to expandi. Does it increase the chance of successful expansion?ii. Is the micro-franchising typology (from the whitepaper) a useful and accurate

framework to distinguish between the pilots and comparison group? If not, how might it be improved?

iii. What dynamics underpin the relationship between micro-franchisor and micro-franchisee?

iv. How successful is MFM at market/geo expansion?v. How successful is MFM at value chain development?vi. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current implementation?

1. Generally?2. With respect to identification of micro-franchisees?3. With respect to accountability and fulfilment of duties?4. With respect to demonstrating proof-of-concept to would-be micro-

franchisees?A2. … compared to traditional franchising

3 The concept of a “businesses wishing to expand” is not strictly defined and will need to be established as part of the study (e.g. through a telephone screener interview). Bidders are encouraged to suggest approaches to operationalizing this part of the study.4 A “supported micro-franchise environment” (SMFE) refers to a model whereby a third-party facilitates the business relationship between micro-franchisor and micro-franchisee. It is a term meant to capture both the donor-assisted environment provided by USAID LENS, as well as a potential future incubator-accelerator which would serve many of the same functions (and more). A SMFE is believed to increase the likelihood of business success, encourage the pursuit of social objectives (e.g. broad-based and inclusive economic growth), facilitate access to finance for would-be micro-franchisors/ees, and ease the regulatory framework for the micro-franchising model.

P a g e 4 | 20

i. How does micro-franchising differ from traditional franchising? What is the gap that micro-franchising solves?

ii. In what market space (e.g. industries) is there overlap between traditional franchising and franchising? Within that shared space, why might someone choose MF over traditional franchising (and vice-versa)?

iii. What are the theoretical benefits, burdens, and risks of traditional franchising, and how do they bear out in practice?

iv. Do franchisors have faith in the legal protections offered by the law (trademark protection, trade secrets, etc.)?

B. Impact of the Micro-Franchising Model (MFM) on Micro-franchisees…B1. … compared to similar start-ups

i. Does the MFM reduce the risk of business failure?ii. Does the MFM increase the rate (and speed) of business success?iii. What has been the greatest value-add of the relationship to the parent?iv. What has been the greatest challenge in working with the parent?v. What support do you feel is still lacking in order to further make your operations

successful?B2. … compared to traditional franchisees

C. Impact of a Supported Micro-Franchising Environment (e.g. through an Incubator-Accelerator) …C1. … compared to an unsupported environment (i.e. MFM without a donor)

i. What was the value-added from having a third party involved in the MFM (LENS or an Incubator-accelerator)?

ii. Does a supported model increase the number of micro-franchises?iii. Does a supported model lead to increased job creation?iv. Does it enhance the economic participation of marginal groups, such as women and

rural populations?v. Does it increase the chance of success?vi. Would the micro-franchisor have pursued MF had it not been for the support received

from USAID LENS?vii. Would the micro-franchisor have pursued social objectives (e.g. reach of people in

poverty pockets) had it not been for USAID LENS?viii. How does the support environment (USAID LENS / incubator) redress information

asymmetries and barriers to entry?C2. … compared to a traditional incubator model

i. Does it respond to a need not addressed by traditional incubators?ii. In what ways could it benefit from overlapping services with a traditional business

incubator?

The list of evaluation questions will be reviewed and finalized by the winning bidder as one of the first deliverables in the contract.

3.3 Management UtilityThe specific information that is needed to make a management decision include:

Whether or not the micro-franchising model (MFM) is a viable approach to encouraging (micro-) economic growth and job creation

Whether or not a micro-franchising Incubator-accelerator is a viable and sustainable approach to increase the uptake and success of the MFM

To learn what could be changed in the MFM and SMFE approaches to improve the technical approach and attain the development objectives

P a g e 5 | 20

3.4 Timeline for This Evaluation to Be UsefulUSAID LENS will close its technical activities in June 2019. The project is now exploring options for handing off the micro-franchising work to community stakeholders and future donor projects. The evaluation is meant to provide evidence to support the uptake of the model by interested parties beyond the life-of-project of USAID LENS. In order to serve these purposes, the evaluation findings must become available between no later than April of 2019.

4. Research DesignAs the evidence base for micro-franchising in Jordan is low, the research questions will primarily be answered by drawing on USAID LENS’ experience with micro-franchising pilots. The study design will draw primarily on qualitative methods meant to support exploratory findings. The four modes of research will include key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), intake surveys,5 and desk reviews. The study will target both individuals involved in USAID LENS’ pilots (“treatment” or “intervention” group) as well as individuals who did not receive USAID LENS assistance (the “comparison” group). More specifically, target participants will include:

Micro-franchisees (treatment and comparison groups) Micro-franchisors (treatment and comparison groups) Traditional franchisors (comparison group) Traditional franchisees (comparison group) USAID LENS technical staff Traditional Incubator staff Traditional Incubator beneficiaries

As four micro-franchise pilots is limiting, eight other USAID LENS activities have been identified as micro-franchising analogues. These activities have elements that closely fit the micro-franchising model and may be used to expand the pool of evidence for the evaluation for a total of twelve treatment cases. USAID LENS will provide the names and contact information of the micro-franchisors and micro-franchisees in the treatment group to the winning bidder.

The selection of the comparison group of micro-franchisors and micro-franchisees is envisioned to be a quasi-experimental design that will target the selection of contrasting cases that closely resemble the treatment group on a number of covariates such as industry, firm age, location, and the owner’s sex.

The selection and recruitment method for the the comparison groups of traditional franchisors, traditional franchisees, and incubator staff/beneficiaries is not prescribed in this RFP. The bidder is encouraged to provide details in their proposed technical approach.

A small quantitative element will be included in the evaluation through the administration of a short intake survey for FGD and KII participants. USAID LENS will take the lead on the quantitative analysis of the survey for inclusion in the final presentation and report.

4.1 Summary of Research Modes

Desk Review

FGD KII SurveyT C T C T C

A. Impact of the MFM on micro-franchisors

5 An intake survey is typically a short, written survey completed by participants of FGDs/KIIs either prior to—or during—the discussion/interview.

P a g e 6 | 20

A1. Compared to businesses wishing to expand - -4

84

8A2. Compared to traditional franchising ✓ - 8 8

B. Impact of the MFM on micro-franchiseesB1. Compared to similar start-ups - 50 50 - 50 50B2. Compared to traditional franchisees ✓ 5 - 5

C. Impact of a Supported MF EnvironmentC1. Compared to an unsupported environment ✓ see B1 TBD -C2. Compared to a traditional incubator ✓ 5 1 3 -

Total 1106 24 125 Note: T = Treatment (Intervention) Group; C = Comparison Group

4.2 Existing Resources The winning bidder will have access to several USAID LENS resources, including:

o Relevant monitoring data on the micro-franchise pilots (and micro-franchising analogues)

o Access to LENS’ whitepaper on micro-franchising (unpublished)o Advisory support from USAID LENS staff on the research methodso The draft intake survey, developed by USAID LENS

As space in USAID LENS offices is limited, the winning bidder is expected to have their own workspace and their own personal computer.

The ultimate logistical and financial responsibility over focus group discussion (FGDs) and key-informant interviews (KIIs) falls with the winning bidder. However, USAID LENS may provide logistical support based on its existing network of partners and regional offices.

5. Tasks/Activities 1. Planning Stage:1.1 Kickoff meeting with USAID LENS staff1.2 Gather inputs and evaluation questions from stakeholders:

In this step, the contractor will need to meet with key stakeholders to gather inputs on the proposed evaluation questions and finalize the list of questions with USAID LENS approval.

1.3 Prepare intake survey questionnaireIn this step, the contractor will need to further develop the existing draft questionnaire to capture quantitative measures from participants of the FGD and KIIs. Depending on whether the contractor choses to implement a paper-and-pencil or digitally-administered survey, the contractor will need to implement the questionnaire in the appropriate format (e.g. programing/testing electronic tablets).

1.4 Prepare focus group discussion (FGD) discussion outlinesIn this step, the contactor will develop outlines to be used to guide FGDs and take appropriate notes. The suggested page length is between 2-10 pages but may be more depending on how much blank space is used.

1.5 Prepare key informant interview (KII) outlinesIn this step, the contactor will develop outlines to be used to guide KIIs and take appropriate notes. The suggested page length is between 2-10 pages but may be more depending on how much blank space is used.

1.6 Finalize evaluation planIn this step, the contactor will finalize a evaluation plan with USAID LENS approval. The plan should draw on element from this RFP, the vendor’s proposal, and any additional details not previously detailed (e.g. recruitment methodology for comparison group).

6 110 participants are targeted to through focus groups. Assuming five individuals per group, this implies roughly 22 separate focus groups discussions.

P a g e 7 | 20

1.7 Participant Recruitment and Logistical PreparationIn this step, the contactor will be required to organize a target of 22 focus group discussions (110 desired participants) and 24 key informant interviews (as per section 4.1). The vendor will need to assume costs and responsibilities for the venue, participant refreshments, and participant travel stipends, bidders should abide by USAID Jordan Mission Order (Annex F). The contractor will be responsible over participant recruitment for the comparison group according to a quasi-experimental method7 that will select individuals that closely match the treatment group. Depending on the method chosen, the contractor may be required to administer a telephone screener interview to assess eligibility. USAID LENS will provide advisory support in the statistical methodology, but the ultimate responsibility for recruitment of the comparison group will remain with the contractor.

2. Fieldwork:2.1 Key-informant interviews

In this step, the contactor will administer key-informant interviews with agreed-upon individuals. These will include interviewers with USAID LENS pilot micro-franchisors (4), traditional franchisors, and incubator staff. Interviews will need to be conducted in the primary language of the participant, which may be English or Arabic. The contractor is asked to take audio recordings and notes during the sessions.

2.2 Focus group discussionsIn this step, the contactor will administer focus group discussion with micro-franchisees and other comparison group individuals (as detailed in section 4.1). Discussion will generally be conducted in Arabic. The contractor is asked to take audio recordings and notes during the sessions.

2.3 FGD/KII post-processing (transcription)In this step, the contactor will provide transcripts of the focus group discussions and key informant interviews, in the language they were administered. No translation of the transcriptions is prescribed if the vendor does not deem it necessary for the analysis and writeup of the findings.

2.4 Data entry and cleaning of intake survey:In this step, the contactor will be required to clean the intake survey data and ensure it is provided to USAID LENS in a machine-readable, tabular format (e.g. Excel, CSV).

2.5 Desk review of traditional franchisingIn this step, the contactor will conduct a desk review of the traditional franchising landscape in Jordan. The research may draw on existing literature, publicly-available data, and any other secondary information deemed relevant. The research is meant to provide an overview of traditional franchising that can be compared to micro-franchising.

2.6 Desk review of incubator modelsIn this step, the contactor will conduct a desk review of the traditional business incubators/accelerators, both international and those in Jordan. The research may draw on existing literature, publicly-available data, and any other information deemed relevant. The research is meant to provide an overview of business incubators/accelerators that can be compared to a potential micro-franchising incubator-accelerator.

3. Analysis and Reporting3.1 Qualitative analysis of transcripts

In this step, the contactor will analyze the input from the focus group discussions and key information interviews and begin writing their findings for the draft report. USAID LENS does not prescribe any preferred method of analysis.

3.2 Quantitative analysis of intake survey:

7 Examples include propensity score matching (PSM) and manhalobis matching. The proposed covariates of comparison include the business industry, governorate, sex-of-owner, and age of business (year of registration).

P a g e 8 | 20

This step will be led by USAID LENS staff. The findings will be shared with the contractor for discussion and inclusion in the final presentation and report.

3.3 Co-write first draft of reportIn this step, the contractor will collaborate with designated USAID LENS staff to co-author a draft report. The division of labor will be agreed-upon in the early planning stages of the contract. The report is envisioned to be between 35-50 pages. The contractor is encouraged to structure the report according to the hierarchical structure introduced in section 3.1.

3.4 Review of first draft, review from stakeholdersIn this step, USAID LENS will review the draft report and provide commentary on desired improvements, changes, and questions.

3.5 Initial presentation to USAID LENS senior managementFor this step, the vendor will make a 45-minute presentation to USAID LENS management (and other interested parties) on the key findings.

3.6 Finalization of reportFor this step, the vendor will integrate any final inputs gathered during the presentation and deliver its final report to USAID LENS.

6. Deliverables & Expected DurationThe total duration of the assignment must fall within a 17 weeks period from the agreed upon start date. The final report should be completed no later than April 15th, 2019.

The selected firm is responsible for the preparation and submission of the following illustrative deliverables, with each item being completed in accordance to the proposed duration, as detailed in the Gantt chart on page 10.

P a g e 9 | 20

ILLUSTRATIVE TIMEFRAME AND DELIVERABLES

wk 1

wk 2 wk

3wk 4

wk 5

wk 6

wk 7 wk

8wk 9

wk 10

wk 11

wk 12

wk 13

wk 14

wk 15

wk 16

wk 17

USAID LENS Micro-Franchising Evaluation Deliverable

LENS Involvement

[1] Preparation 1.1 Kickoff meeting with USAID

LENS Staff none High x

1.2 Gather inputs and evaluation questions from stakeholders 1 doc (1-3pp) Medium x x

1.3 Prepare intake survey questionnaire 2x docs (1-5pp) High x

1.4 Prepare focus group discussion (FGD) discussion outlines

1 doc (2-10pp) Low x

1.5 Prepare key informant interview (KII) outlines 2 doc (2-10pp) Low x

1.6 Finalize evaluation plan 1 doc (no page limit) Medium x 1.7 Participant Recruitment and

Logistical Preparation Logistical brief Low x x

[2] Fieldwork & Data Gathering 2.1 Key-informant interviews 24 KIIs Medium x x 2.2 Focus group discussions 22 FGDs Medium x x x x x x 2.3 FGD/KII post-processing

(transcription)1 transcript per

FGD/KII Low x x x x x x x

2.4 Data entry and cleaning of intake survey Excel data file Low x x x

2.5 Desk review of traditional franchising none Low x x x x

2.6 Desk review of incubator models none Low x x x x

[3] Reporting 3.1 Qualitative analysis of none Low x x

P a g e 10 | 20

transcripts3.2 Quantitative analysis of intake

survey none High

3.3 Co-write first draft of report 1 doc (35-50pp) Medium x x x 3.4 Review of first draft, review

from stakeholders none High x

3.5 Initial presentation to USAID LENS senior management 45min presentation Medium x x

3.6 Finalization of report 1 doc (35-50pp) Low x x x x7.

P a g e 11 | 20

7. General Instructions to Offerorsa. Single Award. FHI 360 anticipates awarding one (1) fixed price award as a result of this Solicitation

through full and open competition. However, FHI 360 reserves the right to award more or no awards 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 downgraded and not receive full or partial credit under the applicable evaluation criteria. If an Offeror does not understand the instructions in this Solicitation, then it must write to RFP@jordanlens.org by the question submission deadline.

c. Accurate and Complete Information. Offerors must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this RFP. The penalty for making false statements is elimination from further consideration and termination of any contract if awarded.

d. Pre-award Survey. FHI 360 reserves the right to perform a pre-award survey which may include, but is not limited to: (1) interviews with individuals to establish their ability to perform contract duties under the project conditions; (2) a review of the financial condition, business and personnel procedures, etc.; and (3) site visits.

e. Proposal Preparation Costs. FHI 360 and USAID LENS will not pay for any proposal preparation costs.

f. Submission of Alternate Proposals. Offerors must submit a proposal directly responsive to the terms and conditions of this RFP. Alternate proposals will not be accepted.

Delivery Instructionsa. Electronic submission. The Offeror must submit the proposal through electronic submission. Hand

delivered proposals (including commercial courier) and facsimile transmission will not be accepted.

b. Proposals must be submitted in two volumes: Volume I, Technical Proposal, including Past Performance, Gantt Chart, Past Performance References, CVs; and Volume II, Cost Proposal, including budget, budget narrative, biodata forms. The technical proposal shall not reference cost.

c. The complete Technical Proposal must be submitted in MS Word (or compatible) or Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf).

d. The complete Cost Proposal must also be separately submitted in Microsoft Word (for narrative text), Microsoft Excel (for budgets and other relevant tables) and unlocked.

e. Proposals must be submitted to: RFP@jordanlens.org by the date and time on the cover page of this solicitation.

f. Offer Validity. Offerors are required to indicate the validity period of offer is ninety (90) days from the date the offer is submitted to allow sufficient time to evaluate proposals and complete negotiations.

g. Proposal Clarity. The Offeror’s proposal should be specific, complete, and concise. The Offeror is urged to examine this solicitation in its entirety and to assure that its proposal contains all the necessary information, provides all required documentation and is complete in all respects since the evaluation of proposals will be based on the actual material presented and not on the basis of what is implied.

P a g e 12 | 20

The Technical Proposal in response to this solicitation will address how the offeror intends to carry out the statement of work (SOW). It will also contain a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken and the responsibilities of all parties involved.

The Offeror will ensure its Cost Proposal is consistent with its Technical Proposal in all respects since the Cost Proposal may be used as an aid to determine the Offeror's understanding of the technical requirements.

h. The Offeror should submit its best proposal initially as FHI 360 may evaluate proposals and make an award without discussions. However, FHI 360 reserves the right to conduct discussions should FHI 360 deem it necessary.

i. Offerors are allowed to submit one proposal. If an Offeror participates in more than one proposal, all proposals involving the Offeror will be rejected.

j. If the Offeror includes a group of firms and/or subcontractors, one lead organization or firm must be clearly identified and is responsible for handling all reporting and coordination with USAID LENS.

k. The person signing the Offeror’s proposal must have the authority to commit the Offeror to all the provisions of the Offeror’s proposal.

l. Proposals shall be written in English. Cost proposals from Jordanian offerors shall be presented in Jordan Dinar. Cost proposals from US or other Geo Code 937 qualified Offerors shall be presented in US Dollar.

8. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal Please ensure completed forms, including the Evidence of Responsibility and Independent Price Determination, along with a copy of legal registration, are included with the technical proposal otherwise the proposal may be rejected.

a. The Technical Proposal in response to this solicitation must address and follow the technical evaluation factors listed in Section 10. The technical proposal will consist of the Technical Proposal Body and an Annex. These two parts together will constitute the Offeror’s technical proposal. The proposal must be well organized, complete, specific, clear and succinctly presented.

b. Page Limitation. Proposals will be concise, specific and complete and detailed information will be presented only when required by specific RFP instructions. The Technical Proposal Body itself will not exceed 18 pages, excluding the Annex and non-substantive items such as the cover page, acronyms, dividers, and table of contents are not included in the 18-page limit. Proposals will be written in English. Pages exceeding the limit will not be read or evaluated. No material may be incorporated in the proposal by reference, attachment, annex, etc. to circumvent the page limitation.

c. Technical Proposal Annex. The technical proposal annex must contain the documents specified below, including as applicable: work plan, detailed staffing plans, CVs, and any other supporting documentation requested explicitly by the RFP.

d. Organization. The technical proposal must be organized into the following sections as follows: Cover Page: Offerors must provide the names of the organizations involved in the proposal and the

contact information for the Offeror’s main point of contact, including this individual’s name, title or position with the organization/institution, address, e-mail address, and telephone. Offerors must acknowledge whether the contact person is the individual with authority to contract for the Offeror, and if not, that individual must also be listed. (Not included in the 18-page limit.)

P a g e 13 | 20

Technical Proposal Body – This section will include the following sections: Technical Approach and Performance Work Statement Personnel and Management Approach Organizational Capacity and Experience Past Performance

Annex – The following are required in the Technical Proposal Annex: Workplan M&E Plan Staffing Plan Key Personnel statements (CVs) Biodata forms Past Performance references Sustainability plan Evidence of Responsibility and Independent Price Determination Copy of legal registration

These sections, including the annex where relevant, must include all information required to fairly evaluate the Offeror under the applicable evaluation factors. Specific guidance on the content of each of these sections is set forth below.

e. Technical Approach (not to exceed 5 pages) - This section should include information sufficient to properly evaluate the proposal under the Technical Approach.

Offerors must describe their overall technical approach and methodology to be utilized by the Offeror for the design, development, implementation and achievement of the stated Tasks and Deliverables provided in Sections 5&6 of the solicitation. The Offeror shall articulate how it intends to address each of the required tasks as well as desired system functionalities, features and project deliverables listed, in addition to any suggestions and recommendations to these areas while demonstrating the project management approach and framework to be utilized.

f. Capability Statement (not to exceed 5 pages) – explains Offeror’s understanding of desired system and requirements as well as its capability to perform the scope of work, tasks and deliverables. Offeror shall demonstrate it has the necessary organizational systems and procedures, e.g. personnel policies, travel policies, project management, equipment, supplies and personnel in place to successfully comply with contract requirements and accomplish expected results.

g. Past Performance (not to exceed 5 pages) - Offeror shall briefly describe how the past performance of the Offeror and its team (including all partners of a coalition/joint venture) is relevant to performance of the Contract. The Offeror shall submit a list (up to five) of current and past similar work and assignments completed in the past five years that were similar in size, scope and complexity.

Include the contact information: company or organization, name, phone number and email. Please use the Past Performance Reference Form template.

h. Timeline (1 page): A detailed timeline required to complete the project.

i. Personnel/Staffing (not to exceed 2 pages) identify, in summary format of 2-3 sentences, the names, anticipated positions of the field team leaders and essential personnel proposed to perform the requirements of this scope of work, tasks and deliverables. The narrative shall include the percentage of staff time of principals and managers on this activity.

P a g e 14 | 20

The approach should include the organizational structure of the entire project team (including sub-awardees and other local partners), and explain how the staffing plan will result in successful implementation of the proposed technical approach and accomplish the objectives of the activity. If the Offeror anticipates using any sub-awards, include the roles and responsibilities of each sub-awardee, and the lines of authority and communication.

CVs (not to exceed two pages each) that clearly describe education, experience and professional credentials, and biodata forms shall be completed and attached for the proposed personnel and submitted in Annex. These pages do not count towards the page limitation for this section.

Note: proposed salaries for staff shall be supported by the salary history certified in the biodata forms. FHI 360 reserves the right to verify salary history and rates.

9. Instructions for Preparation of the Cost Proposal The Offeror shall provide a complete budget, including budgets for partners, subcontractors, by cost element propose using Annex A - Budget Template. All formulas must be displayed in the cells and the budget must not be locked. The Offeror must propose costs it believes are realistic and reasonable for the work in accordance with the Offeror’s technical approach.

The Offeror must provide a narrative (Annex B – Budget Narrative) discussing the different cost elements to adequately justify the total estimated cost. Any assumptions should be clearly stated. The information in the narrative should be in sufficient detail to allow a complete analysis. This should include a complete breakdown of cost elements associated with each line item and those costs associated with any proposed subcontract or sub grant. Be sure to include data and/or methodologies to support cost estimates.

The budget narrative shall be presented in such a way as to be easily referenced from the budget and should provide sufficient information so that FHI 360 may review the proposed budget for reasonableness.

The Offeror shall provide a complete budget based on cost elements described below.

a. Proposed staff, rates, number of person-days needed to accomplish the work. The rates shall be UNLOADED rates. Fringe benefits should be budgeted separately.

List employee name (when identified), functional position and duration of assignment (in terms of person days), and daily rate. The daily rate is derived by dividing base annual salary exclusive of fringe benefits, incentives, bonuses, overtime, allowances and differentials by 260 days.

Offeror must include a signed biodata form (Annex C) for any proposed staff named in the budget.

b. Fringe Benefits - shall be based on labor law and organizational policy. FHI 360 reserves the right to request a copy of the Offeror’s fringe policy. An explanation of the fringe shall be included in the budget narrative.

c. Travel and Transportation – Provide the number of trips, origin and destination of trips, estimated air fares, and other costs such as taxi fees. Please note that international travel will not be funded through this award.

d. Per Diem – Local Offerors shall budget per diem associated with travel and transportation in accordance with the USAID/Jordan Mission Order: In-country Per Diem and Transportation Policy for USAID/Jordan Implementors, http://aoprals.state.gov/web920/perd-diem.asp . Qualified international Offerors shall refer to the US Department of State per diem policy, but should consider using the USAID Mission Order.

P a g e 15 | 20

e. Costs of workshops, trainings, meeting sessions with USAID LENS staff and related materials, printed materials, supplies, etc.

f. Separate running costs, or other direct costs (ODCs) shall be broken down as applicable, e.g. rent, utilities, communication. Justification should include total monthly cost and percentage of the proposed cost to this project.

g. All projected costs must be in accordance with the organization’s standard practices and policies.

h. Offers including budget information determined to be unreasonable, incomplete, unnecessary for the completion of the proposed project or based on a methodology that is not adequately supported, may be deemed unacceptable.

Furthermore:

i. Cost proposals from Jordanian Offerors shall be presented in Jordan Dinar. Cost proposals from US or other Geo Code 937 qualified Offerors shall be presented in US Dollar.

j. This project is TAX EXEMPT. Budgets shall reflect the exclusion of any applicable taxes such as VAT.

k. All costs must be budgeted as direct costs. Indirect costs, e.g. overhead, management, administrative, F&A, G&A, will not be accepted.

l. Profit or Fee: A “fee” may be proposed, but FHI360 reserves the right to determine the reasonableness of the fee as well as negotiate the amount and terms of payment. Organizations proposing a fee shall consider:

complexity and innovation of the work to be performed; risk borne by the contractor and the contractor’s investment; amount of any subcontracting which requires monitoring, especially international

monitoring; quality of its record of past performance of similar work that can be demonstrated; industry profit rates in the surrounding geographical area for similar work; length of the contract (short-term is less than 12 months, long-term exceeds 12 months); clarity and cost reasonableness of the initial budget and budget narrative; and fees charges to other clients.

m. If indirect costs are proposed, Offeror must provide a copy of its current NICRA (Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement) issued by a US Government Agency. The detailed budget breakdown shall be structured and formatted to clearly and easily identify the indirect rate (s) applied, and the resulting dollar amount. If the offeror does not have a NICRA, an externally certified indirect rate, or cannot otherwise justify charging an indirect cost rate, the offeror is instructed to directly charge all costs.

10. Evaluation Criteria - FHI 360 will evaluate proposals based on the Trade-Off Process in accordance with this Section (and the Federal Acquisition Regulations – FAR) and award to the responsible Offeror that presents a proposal representing the best value to FHI 360 considering both cost and non-cost factors. “Best value” is defined as the expected outcome that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the RFP requirements.

Offers will first be administratively reviewed for completeness and mandatory requirements:

P a g e 16 | 20

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS MEETS REQUIREMENT

Offeror meets USAID Geographic Code 937 requirement (Jordan, the United States, and developing countries, other than advanced developing countries and excluding prohibited sources8).

YES/NO

Evidence of Responsibility and Independent Price Determination Form Completed YES/NO

Failure to meet these two requirements may result in exclusion of a technical proposal from further consideration and/or downgrading of a technical proposal.

Proposals will then be evaluated and scored by a technical evaluation committee (TEC) using the evaluation criteria stated herein. When evaluating the competing Offers, FHI 360 will consider the written qualifications and capability information provided as well as any other information obtained through its own research.

Technical and cost will be evaluated relative to each other, as described herein. Technical is significantly more important than cost or price. The technical proposal will be scored using the criteria shown in this section. Based on the assessment of the technical qualities of the proposals, a competitive range may be established.

FHI 360 will conduct its evaluation of Offerors’ Technical Proposals as prescribed herein. The evaluation factors (including sub-factors) listed below are presented by descending order of importance, so that Offerors will know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of information.

Offerors must note that these criteria serve as the standard against which all technical information will be evaluated, and serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors must address.

Evaluation Criteria Points1 Technical Approach

Extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the development context and Statement of Work Comprehensiveness of proposed approach.

Clarity and appropriateness of proposed activity Clarity and appropriateness of proposed methodology of participant

recruitment Implementation plan and proposed timeline are realistic and include all the

desired elements of activity.

30

2 Capability Statement – based on the extent to which the Offeror and its partners or subcontractors (if any) convincingly demonstrate its institutional capability to effectively and successfully achieve the objectives in the statement of work and implement its proposed technical approach.

Organizational competence relative to the Tasks and Deliverables, including knowledge of and experience working in Jordan and the Middle East

Capabilities mobilizing short-term technical assistance experts and teams. Organizational systems and procedures Excellent Arabic and English speaking and writing ability

30

3 Personnel - quality and appropriateness of the proposed personnel, including the extent to which they meet qualification requirements and convincingly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to effectively and successfully achieve the contract’s objectives.

25

8 For USAID’s list of developing countries, please see http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1876/310maa.pdf

P a g e 17 | 20

4 Past Performance/ReferencesOverall, previous successful experience implementing similar activities, looking at:

Quality of product or service, including timeliness of performance; Meeting goals and targets; Customer satisfaction with performance; and Prior experience working in Jordan and the Middle East. Prior experience working in research or the M&E field (including potential

past experience with evaluations)

15

TOTAL 100

Cost proposals will be evaluated, but will not be scored. The evaluation of the offeror’s cost proposal will deal with cost analysis and cost realism analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), FHI 360 will perform a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and estimating the specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed costs elements are realistic for:

the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and consistency with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

A cost evaluation will not be performed on Offerors whose technical proposal is not deemedtechnically acceptable.

NOTE: FHI 360 will not compensate the company for its presentation of response to this RFP nor is the issuing of this RFP a guarantee that FHI 360 will award a subcontract.

11. Competitive Range – If FHI 360 determines that discussions are necessary, FHI 360 may establish a Competitive Range composed of only the most highly-rated proposals. FHI 360 may exclude an offer from the competitive range if it is so deficient as to essentially require a new technical proposal. FHI 360 may exclude an offer from the competitive range if it so unreasonably priced, in relation to more competitive offers, as to appear that there will be little or no chance of becoming competitive. FHI 360 may exclude an offer that would require extensive discussions, a complete re-write, or major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those more competitive offers.

12. Oral Presentations – As part of the evaluation, the technical evaluation committee (TEC) reserves the right to require offerors to present key parts of their submitted proposals to the committee.

13. General Terms and Conditions 1. Any proposal received in response to this solicitation will be reviewed strictly as submitted and in

accordance with Section 11, 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 bid that they are 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 bid 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.

P a g e 18 | 20

3. Terms and Conditions: Offerors are responsible for review of the terms and conditions described.

4. Contract Mechanism: FHI 360 anticipates awarding a fixed-price subcontract.

5. Withdrawals of Proposals: Offerors may withdraw proposals by written notice via email received at any time 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. Due Diligence Process: Any selected firm will be required to complete a Financial Pre-Award Assessment in order for FHI 360 to ascertain that the organization has the capacity to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed award. As part of the Pre-Award Assessment process, the firm will also be requested to submit a financial audit report from the previous fiscal year. In addition, payroll records and other financial information may be requested to support budgeted costs.

8. Client Prior Approval: The selected offeror will be subject to funding agency approval before a subcontract 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 subcontract cannot be awarded.

9. 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 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.

10. Request for 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. All information in the RFP and negotiation process will be contractually binding for the selected Offeror.

11. Offer Verification: FHI 360 may contact Offerors to confirm contact person, address, bid amount and that a bid was submitted for this solicitation.

12. False Statements in Offer: Offerors must provide full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation and its attachments.

13. 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 vendor and/or terminating an award.

P a g e 19 | 20

14. Work Product Presumptive FHI360 Property : All writings, books, articles, computer programs, databases, source and object codes, and other material of any nature whatsoever, including trademarks, trade names, and logos, that is subject to copyright protection and reduced to tangible form in whole or in part by Contractor’s in the course of its service to FHI360 shall be considered a work made for hire, or otherwise FHI360 property. During this agreement and thereafter, Contractor agrees to take all actions and execute any documents that FHI360 may consider necessary to obtain or maintain copyrights, whether during the application for copyright or during the conduct of an interference, infringement, litigation, or other matter. Contractor shall identify all materials in which Contractor intends to exempt from this provision prior to the use or development of such materials.

15. Rights in Data : The Contractor understands and agrees that FHI360 may itself and permit others, including government agencies of the United States and other foreign governments, to reproduce through but not limited to the publication, broadcast, translation, creation of other versions, quotations there from, any provided publications and materials, and otherwise utilize this work and material based on this work. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless FHI360, and the US Government and its agencies against all claims, suits, costs, damages, and expenses that may be sustained by reason of any scandalous, libelous, or unlawful matter contained or alleged to be contained in the work, or any infringement or violation by the work of any copyright or property right; and until such claim or suit has been settled or withdrawn, FHI360 may withhold any sums due the Contractor under this agreement. Contractor agrees to specifically identify to FHI360 and FHI360 any and all computer software licenses (“including shrink-wrap”) as may convey to FHI360 and FHI360. Contractor agrees that any and all computer software developed in the performance of this order using FHI360 monies shall, unless otherwise agreed, become and remain the property of FHI360.

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

a. To disqualify any offer based on offeror failure to follow solicitation instructions.b. Waive any deviations by Offerors from the requirements of this solicitation that in FHI

360’s opinion are considered not material defects requiring rejection or disqualification, or where such a waiver will promote increased competition.

c. Extend the time for submission of all RFP responses after notification to all vendors.d. Terminate or modify the RFP process at any time and reissue the RFP to whomever FHI

360 deems appropriate.e. Issue an award based on the initial evaluation of offerors without discussion.f. Award only part of the activities in the solicitation or issue multiple awards based on

solicitation activities.

Annexes: - Annex A: Budget Template.- Annex B: Budget Narrative.- Annex C: Bio data form.- Annex D: PPR template.- Annex E: Evidence of Responsibility and Independent Price Determination.- Annex F: USAID Mission Order: In-country Per Diem and Transportation Policy

End of RFP

P a g e 20 | 20