Public Notice

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: Toolkit Identifying Best Practices on Human Rights Documentation

I. Requested Proposal Program Objectives

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals (RFP) from organizations interested in submitting proposals for projects that will define aspects of human rights documentation overseas, including the development of a toolkit to guide civil society organizations and other stakeholders working in this area.

PLEASE NOTE: DRL strongly encourages applicants to access immediately www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov in order to obtain a username and password. GrantSolutions.gov is highly recommended for all submissions and is DRL’s preferred choice of receiving applications. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for Full Proposals, as updated in October 2014, available at: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm.

DRL invites organizations to submit proposals for programs to conduct the following:

Toolkit Identifying Best Practices on Human Rights Documentation (approximately $250,000, pending availability of funding):

1. SCOPE

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals from individuals and organizations interested in designing and implementing a project that will define aspects of human rights documentation overseas, including the development of a toolkit to guide civil society organizations and other stakeholders working in this area. This project will be awarded as a cooperative agreement. The purpose of this award is to:

1) Define the universe of actors, networks and techniques utilized by organizations to document human rights violations, including for accountability, advocacy, educational, and other purpose;

2) Describe which techniques are most effective to achieve which programmatic objectives, and identify overlaps and contradictions;

3) Identify common challenges in documentation work and provide recommendations for strengthening networks, better identifying what organizations on the ground need to be successful, and addressing challenges (e.g., identifying individual types of violations/incidents, addressing physical security concerns, understanding the nexus between human rights documentation and case file information used to provide support to survivors of human rights violations, etc.)

4) Determine and share past successes, failures, and best practices in the human rights documentation process, with particular focus on documentation in line with international norms and standards and support to civil society organizations engaged in documentation efforts (e.g., identifying best practices in the mechanics of collecting and analyzing information, publicizing documentation, linking documentation and advocacy efforts, and building capacity to identify objectives and use documentation strategically and with appropriate target audiences); and

5) Explore the intersection between human rights documentation and technology, including a mapping of technological resources available for human rights organizations documenting violations, as well as archive, storage, search and analysis tools and some component of digital safety and security.

A key component of this project will be the design and implementation of a meaningful and sustainable process to bring technical experts from a range of fields together across spheres of work (e.g., human rights advocates, technology developers, policy actors, etc.). This process should include the identification of individuals and organizations who can serve as interlocutors connecting these sectors, in service of promoting innovative and multi-disciplinary ways to organize, preserve, protect, analyze, interpret and share data for varying purposes. An important part of this process will also be the exchange of learning examples from past and current multi-sector and interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships.

Given the emphasis on a multi-disciplinary approach and the variety of competencies reflected in this project, successful applicants will likely include a consortium or group of organizations and/or individuals.

2. BACKGROUND

A range of public and private donors have been consistently supporting programs that document human rights violations for more than ten years. However, there are few guidelines that provide clarity on different types of human rights documentation (e.g., investigations for legal processes versus qualitative interviews for advocacy purposes) as well as a clear and systematic strategy for designing and supporting human rights documentation programs that utilize international norms and achieve a specific outcome (e.g., accountability, advocacy, providing information to international mechanisms, awareness-raising and educational purposes, memorialization, etc.). It has been noted by donors and implementing partners alike that different sectors working on human rights documentation are often very “silo-ed”, whether across geographic boundaries, or among various communities of practice working on specific issues such as criminal accountability, LGBT rights, SGBV, Internet freedom and technology, or those who have different levels of expertise and kinds of technical skills, such as technologists and human rights defenders; yet, the kinds of underlying questions that groups engaged in documentation work with struggle may be common (e.g., how to collect, archive, manage, share and protect information effectively, how to analyze and design strategies to utilize that information and for what purpose, etc.) Further, there has been little systematic inquiry into and planning for funding programs that incorporate the successes of past efforts, and utilize lessons learned.

This aim of this project is to conduct a systematic desk study that will define the range of techniques or processes that are used to document human rights violations across programming streams and articulate which techniques can be most effectively used to achieve which specific objectives. The study should clearly elucidate important differences in these techniques, such as the difference between “investigations” for criminal accountability purposes and documenting human rights violations for advocacy, awareness raising, educational, international monitoring, or other goals.

This project will also include a public report or toolkit that will articulate best practices for civil society organizations and stakeholders engaged in documentation efforts, including support for the mechanics of collecting and analyzing information as well as building capacity to identify objectives and use that information strategically. The toolkit should at a minimum provide a compendium and definition of different kinds of documentation tools, provide illustrative examples of when and how these tools are best utilized to achieve particular objectives, and include a map of technological resources available for human rights organizations documenting violations, and touch upon the basics of digital safety and security. Finally, the project should also include a process for bringing together key stakeholders that document human rights abuses in different sectors using different tools to articulate questions that need to be addressed by the human rights community regarding human rights documentation, the next steps in addressing these questions and how they can be incorporated into the final toolkit. This process should articulate who the organizations and stakeholders documenting human rights are, connect them across various divides (e.g., technical skillsets, research and practice, thematic areas of focus, documentation strategies, etc.) and find interlocutors who can serve this function sustainably. The findings from this project will help the stakeholders working in this space make better and more strategic decisions about support to and design of programs working in this space, and hopefully help create more synergies across different actors and issues within the human rights documentation community.

Successful applications will likely include a group of organizations and individuals who together: demonstrate a strong multi-disciplinary approach; familiarity and/or technical expertise across each of the content and process-related areas mentioned above (as well as others that may be relevant); describe how the proposed project builds on previous or ongoing efforts to articulate questions, address challenges and promote learning and coordination amongst the community of practice working on human rights documentation; and, demonstrate a commitment to utilizing innovative approaches and creativity to address complex problems and issues.

II. Background Information on general DRL funding

DRL supports programs that uphold democratic principles, support and strengthen democratic institutions, promote human rights, and build civil society around the world. Funds are available to support projects that have the potential to have an immediate impact leading to long-term sustainable reforms. Projects should have potential for continued funding beyond DRL resources. DRL prefers innovative and creative approaches rather than programs which simply duplicate or add to efforts by other entities.

DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of government.

The information in this solicitation and DRL’s PSI for Full Proposals, as updated in October 2014, is binding and may not be modified by any DRL representative. Explanatory information provided by DRL that contradicts this language will not be binding. Issuance of the solicitation and negotiation of submissions does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. DRL reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.

DoS awards grants and cooperative agreements to U.S. nongovernmental organizations to implement programs that support development of democratic values and human rights around the globe. These awards are supported through Congressional earmarks in the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, under the Democracy Fund.

This request for proposals will appear on www.grants.gov, www.grantsolutions.gov, and DRL’s website http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm.

III. Eligibility Information:

Organizations submitting proposals must meet the following criteria:

• Be a U.S.-based or foreign-based non-profit organization/non‑government organization (NGO), or a public international organization; or

• Be a private, public, or state institutions of higher education; or

• Be a for-profit organization or business, although there are restrictions on payment of fees and/or profits to the prime recipient under grants and cooperative agreements, including those outlined in 48 CFR Part 30 (“Cost Accounting Standards”), 48 CFR Part 31 (“Cost Principles”), and 22 CFR 145.24(b)(3)(“Program Income”); and

• Have existing, or the capacity to develop, active partnerships with thematic partners or in-country partners, entities, and relevant stakeholders including industry and NGOs; and

• Have demonstrable experience administering successful and preferably similar projects. DRL reserves the right to request additional background information on organizations that do not have previous experience administering federal grant awards. These applicants may be subject to limited funding on a pilot basis.

Organizations may form consortia and submit a combined proposal. However, one organization should be designated as the lead applicant.

DRL’s preference is to work with non-profit entities; however there may be occasions when a for-profit entity is best suited. For-profit entities should be aware that its application may be subject to additional review following the panel selection process.

No entity listed on the Excluded Parties List System in the System for Award Management (SAM) is eligible for any assistance or can participate in any activities under an award in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR Part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR Part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.”

Organizations must have a valid DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number and www.sam.gov registration in order to apply for this solicitation. Please refer to the SAM.gov Registration Guide available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm.

IV. Application Requirements, Deadline, and Technical Eligibility

Applications must conform to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for Full Proposals, as updated in October 2014, available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm.

An organization may submit no more than 1 application. Applications that request less than the award floor ($250,000) or more than the award ceiling ($250,000) will be deemed technically ineligible.

Technically eligible applications are those which:

1) Arrive electronically via GrantSolutions.gov or Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. EST on 4/20/2015

2) Are in English, or if an original document within the application is in another language, an English translation is provided;

3) Heed all instructions contained in this solicitation document and DRL’s Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for Full Proposals, including length and completeness of application; and,

4) Do not violate any of the guidelines stated in this solicitation and the PSI for Full Proposals.

Applicants should be aware that all awards made on or after 12/26/2014 will be made with terms and conditions subject to the OMB Uniform Guidance: Cost Principles, Audit, and Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Chapter I, Chapter II, Part 200, et al.). Applications that are submitted before 12/26/2014 for Federal awards to be made on or after 12/26/2014 should be developed in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.

It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all of the material submitted in the grant application package is complete, accurate, and current. DRL will not accept proposals submitted via email, fax, the postal system, or delivery companies or couriers. DRL strongly encourages all applicants, especially foreign or first-time applicants, to submit applications before 4/20/2015 to ensure that the application has been received and is complete.

V. Review and Selection Process

AQM will determine technical eligibility for all applications. All technically eligible applications will then be reviewed against the same six criteria, which are weighted differently (see details below), by a Department of State Review Panel. Additionally, the Panel will evaluate how the application meets the solicitation request, U.S. foreign policy goals, and the priority needs of DRL overall. Panelists review each application individually against the evaluation criteria, not against competing proposals.

In most cases, the Department of State Review Panel includes representatives from DRL, the appropriate Department of State regional bureau, as well as USAID Washington. DRL requests feedback on applications from the appropriate U.S. embassies and USAID missions for the panelists’ consideration. In some cases, additional panelists may participate, including from other Department of State bureaus or offices, U.S. government departments, agencies, or boards, representatives from partner governments, or representatives from entities that are in a public-private partnership with DRL. At the end of discussion on an application, the panel votes on recommending the application for approval by the DRL Assistant Secretary and final signatory authority for assistance awards resides with the Department’s Grants Officer. The Grants Officer Representative (GOR) for the eventual award does not vote on the panel.

Department of State Review Panels may provide conditions and recommendations on applications to enhance the proposed program, which must be addressed by the applicant before further consideration of the award. To ensure effective use of limited DRL funds, conditions or recommendations may include requests to increase, decrease, clarify, and/or justify costs and program activities.

Review Criteria

1) Quality of Program Idea/Inclusivity of Marginalized Populations (30 points)

Applications should be responsive to the solicitation and should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to DRL’s mission of promoting human rights and democracy. DRL typically does not fund programs that continue an organization’s ongoing work (funded by DRL or other sources), but prioritizes innovative, stand-alone programs. In situations where similar activities are already taking place, an explanation should be provided as to how new activities will not duplicate or merely add to existing activities and how these efforts will be coordinated. Projects that have a strong academic, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health or science related projects unless they have an explicit component related to the requested program objectives in the solicitation.

Again, please note that successful applications will likely include a group of organizations and individuals who together: demonstrate a strong multi-disciplinary approach; familiarity and/or technical expertise across each of the content and process-related areas mentioned above (as well as others that may be relevant); describe how the proposed project builds on previous or ongoing efforts to articulate questions, address challenges and promote learning and coordination amongst the community of practice working on human rights documentation; and, demonstrate a commitment to utilizing innovative approaches and creativity to address complex problems and issues.

DRL strives to ensure its programs advance the rights and uphold the dignity of the most at risk and vulnerable populations, including women, youths, people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons. To the extent possible, applicants should identify and address considerations to support these populations in all proposed program activities and objectives, and should provide specific means, measures, and corresponding targets to include them as appropriate. Applicants should provide strong justifications if unable to incorporate the most at risk and vulnerable populations within proposed program activities and objectives. Applications that do incorporate the most at risk and vulnerable populations will be viewed favorably in this category.

2) Program Planning/Ability to Achieve Objectives (20 points)

A strong application will include a clear articulation of how the proposed program activities contribute to the overall program objectives, and each activity will be clearly developed and detailed. A comprehensive monthly work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and the logistical capacity of the organization. Objectives should be ambitious, yet measurable results-focused and achievable in a reasonable time frame. A complete application must include a logic model to demonstrate how the program will have an impact on its proposed objectives. Applications should address how the program will engage relevant stakeholders and should identify local partners as appropriate. If local partners have been identified, DRL strongly encourages applicants to submit letters of support from proposed in-country partners. Additionally, applicants should describe the division of labor among the direct applicant and any local partners. If applicable, applications should identify target areas for activities, target participant groups or selection criteria for participants, and the specific roles of subgrantees, among other pertinent details. In particularly challenging operating environments, applications should include contingency plans for overcoming potential difficulties in executing the original work plan and address any operational or programmatic security concerns and how they will be addressed.

3) Cost Effectiveness/Cost Sharing (15 points)

DRL strongly encourages applicants to clearly demonstrate program cost-effectiveness in their application, including examples of leveraging institutional and other resources. Applications should include budgets with low and/or reasonable overhead and administration costs and provide clear explanations and justifications for these costs in relation to the work involved. All budget items should be clearly explained and justified to demonstrate its necessity, appropriateness, and its link to the program objectives.

Cost-sharing is the portion of program cost not borne by the sponsor. DRL encourages cost-sharing, which may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs and offered by the applicant and/or in-country partners. Applicants should consider all types of cost-sharing, including in-kind. Examples include the use of office space owned by other entities; donated or borrowed supplies and equipment; (non-federal) sponsored travel costs; waived indirect costs; and program activities, translations, or consultations conducted by qualified volunteers. The values of offered cost-share should be reported in accordance with (the applicable cost principles outlined in) OMB Circular A-110 (Revised) Subpart C (23) “Cost-sharing or Matching” for programs starting before December 26, 2014 or OMB’s Uniform Guidance for programs starting on or after December 26, 2014. Other federal funding does not constitute cost-sharing.

4) Program Monitoring and Evaluation (15 points)

Complete applications will include a detailed plan (both a narrative and table) of how the project’s progress and impact will be monitored and evaluated throughout the project. Incorporating a well-designed monitoring and evaluation component into a project is one of the most efficient methods of documenting the progress and potential success of a program. Applications should demonstrate the capacity for engaging in impact assessments and providing objectives with measurable outputs and outcomes.

The quality of the M&E plan will be judged on the narrative explaining how monitoring and evaluation will be carried out and who will be responsible for monitoring and evaluation activities and the detailed table listing by program objectives the output and outcome-based performance indicators with baselines and yearly and cumulative targets, data collection tools, data sources, types of data disaggregation, and frequency of monitoring and evaluation; an external midterm and/or final evaluation or justification for why one is not included; and metrics to capture how program activities target the most at risk and vulnerable populations or addresses their concerns. Competitive applications will propose to share pre- and post-test surveys with DRL immediately following trainings.

5) Multiplier Effect/Sustainability (10 points)

Applications should clearly delineate how elements of the program will have a multiplier effect and be sustainable beyond the life of the grant. A good multiplier effect will have an impact beyond the direct beneficiaries of the grant (e.g. participants trained under a grant go on to train other people, workshop participants use skills from a workshop to enhance a national level election that affects the entire populace). A strong sustainability plan may include demonstrating continuing impact beyond the life of a project or garnering other donor support after DRL funding ceases.

6) Institution’s Record and Capacity (10 points)

DRL will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. Applications should demonstrate an institutional record of successful democracy and human rights programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past grants. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the project's objectives.

For additional guidance, please see DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), as updated in October 2014, as well as DRL’s Monitoring and Evaluation Primer and Sample Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. All are available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm.

VI. Contact Information

GrantSolutions.gov Help Desk:

For assistance with GrantSolutions.gov accounts and technical issues related to using the system, please contact Customer Support at help@grantsolutions.gov or call 1-866-577-0771 (toll charges for international callers) or 1-202-401-5282. Customer Support is available 8 AM – 6 PM EST, Monday – Friday, except federal holidays.

Grants.gov Helpdesk:

For assistance with Grants.gov accounts and technical issues related to using the system, please call the Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or email support@grants.gov. The Contact Center is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except federal holidays.

See http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/#url=2014 for a list of federal holidays.

For technical questions related to this solicitation please contact Riva Kantowitz (KantowitzRB@state.gov, 202-663-2063) or Adrian Mangiuca (MangiucaA@state.gov, 202-663-2893)

With the exception of technical submission questions, during the solicitation period U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas shall not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire proposal review process has been completed and rejection and approval letters have been transmitted.