Rule2024-09373
USAID Acquisition Regulation: Planning, Collection, and Submission of Digital Information; Submission of Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan to USAID
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 6, 2024
Effective
June 5, 2024
Issuing agencies
Agency for International Development
Abstract
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issuing a final rule amending USAID Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) that implements USAID requirements for managing digital information as a strategic asset to inform the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Agency's foreign assistance programs. This final rule incorporates a new policy on Digital Information Planning, Collection, and Submission Requirements and the corresponding clause as well as a new clause entitled "Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan Requirements" into the (AIDAR). This final rule is intended to reduce the burden on contractors, increase efficiency, and improve the use of data and other forms of digital information across the Agency's programs and operations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 88 (Monday, May 6, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37948-37964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09373]
[[Page 37947]]
Vol. 89
Monday,
No. 88
May 6, 2024
Part VII
Agency for International Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
48 CFR Parts 727, 742, and 752
USAID Acquisition Regulation: Planning, Collection, and Submission of
Digital Information; Submission of Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and
Learning Plan to USAID; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 2024 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 37948]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
48 CFR Parts 727, 742, and 752
RIN 0412-AA90
USAID Acquisition Regulation: Planning, Collection, and
Submission of Digital Information; Submission of Activity Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Learning Plan to USAID
AGENCY: U.S. Agency for International Development.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
issuing a final rule amending USAID Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) that
implements USAID requirements for managing digital information as a
strategic asset to inform the planning, design, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation of the Agency's foreign assistance programs.
This final rule incorporates a new policy on Digital Information
Planning, Collection, and Submission Requirements and the corresponding
clause as well as a new clause entitled ``Activity Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Learning Plan Requirements'' into the (AIDAR). This
final rule is intended to reduce the burden on contractors, increase
efficiency, and improve the use of data and other forms of digital
information across the Agency's programs and operations.
DATES: Effective June 5, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Miskowski, USAID M/OAA/P, at
202-256-7378 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02726d6e6b617b6f636b6e606d7a427771636b662c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e7e6162676d77636f67626c61764e7b7d6f676a20696178">[email protected]</span></a> for clarification of content or
information pertaining to status or publication schedules. All
communications regarding this rule must cite AIDAR RIN No. 0412-AA90.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
USAID published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 86 FR
71216 on December 15, 2021, to implement USAID requirements for
managing digital information as a strategic asset to inform the
planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the
Agency's foreign assistance programs as outlined in 48 CFR parts 727,
742, and 752. USAID also published a notice of availability of
supplemental document containing data standards in the Federal Register
at 88 FR 22990 on April 14, 2023, and solicited comments. A response to
comments received as well as a revised copy of the supplemental
document is included with this rulemaking.
On August 25, 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) published a Memorandum (viewable at this address: <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf</a>). In this memorandum, OSTP provided policy guidance to
ensure that publications and their supporting data resulting from
federally funded research are publicly accessible without an embargo on
their free and public release. This memo was released after publication
of the proposed rule. USAID's language around embargoes within this
rule is intentionally flexible, granting embargoes on the release of
digital objects only in limited circumstances, such as in the interest
of international development and foreign policy objectives, consistent
with both USAID and OSTP policy and guidance, and no changes have been
made to the language of the rule as a result. In implementation, any
approval of embargoes will be consistent with OSTP guidance.
B. Discussion and Analysis
Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule
Seventeen respondents submitted public comments in response to the
proposed rule. USAID assessed the public comments in the development of
the final rule. The full text of the comments is available at the
Federal Rulemaking Portal, <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. A discussion of the
comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments
are provided as follows:
1. Summary of Significant Changes
The following significant changes from the proposed rule are made
in the final rule:
a. Added definitions for data inventory, digital, and digital
method.
b. Revised applicability of 752.227-71 from the micro purchase
threshold to the simplified acquisition threshold. Similarly, USAID has
added an Alternate clause exempting certain contracts from the
requirement to provide a data management plan. Specifically, contracts
are exempted that: contain no data; are for emergency food assistance;
are for disaster assistance, and transition-assistance activities
managed by the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA); or are for
activities managed by the Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization's Office of Transition Initiatives (CPS/OTI).
c. The burden and cost estimates have been updated to reflect the
changes outlined in paragraph b above, and the comments received
related to this estimate are addressed in the revised Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Additionally, comments regarding the number of respondents
and whether the cost of design, testing, launch, and management of the
Digital Front Door (DFD) website was subtracted are addressed as well.
d. Clarified the timeline for submission as outlined in AIDAR
752.227-71(f)(3)(i).
e. Various administrative amendments and clarifications have been
added, such as revising references throughout the rule to indicate that
the contracting officer, or contracting officer's representative if
delegated, has authority to approve on behalf of USAID and renumbering
of the AIDAR clause sections to conform with USAID numbering
conventions.
2. Analysis of Public Comments
Below are the Agency's responses to comments on the changes
proposed to United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR): Planning, Collection, and Submission of
Digital Information as Well as Submission of Activity Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Learning Plan to USAID. The Agency did not address
comments unrelated to, or outside the scope of, the revisions of the
proposed rule from the existing rule:
a. General Support for the Rule
1. Comment: Five respondents (7, 8, 9, 11, and 15) indicated
general support for the rule. Some commenters noted that the rule will
simplify reporting, reduce redundant data calls, and reduce the burden
on contractors.
Response: USAID acknowledges the respondent's support for the rule.
b. Does Not Support the Rule
1. Comment: One respondent (16) did not support the rule,
indicating that it will make it harder for contractors to act
responsibly with data management of affected populations. Other
commenters (11, 15) did not indicate a lack of support for the rule as
a whole but did note that complex submission requirements may
negatively impact local partners, small business, and potential market
entrants due to potential cost and needed technical expertise.
Response: USAID acknowledges this feedback to the rule.
[[Page 37949]]
c. Data Rights and Protection
Several commenters (6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16) brought up
issues around privacy, PII, publication, and informed consent, which
are addressed in sub-categories as outlined below.
1. Access to Data and Data Rights--
A. Comment: Several commenters (6, 11, 13) inquired about whether
the DFD will be public and available to other partners like the
Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and Development Data Library
(DDL).
Response: The DFD is not its own system and is not intended to
replace other systems. It is a public facing web page with centralized
authentication that will direct users to the appropriate USAID systems
for which they have authorized access. This includes but is not
necessarily limited to the Development Information Solution (DIS), DEC,
and DDL.
B. Comment: Commenter #8 specifically asked whether information
that is exempt from the DFD (like PII) be submitted to USAID first as a
restricted version before being scrubbed and sent to the DFD?
Response: The rule states that the contractor must not submit
information to the DFD that contains personally identifiable
information. And that to the maximum extent possible, the contractor
must remove the association between the set of identifying data and the
individual to which it applies unless retaining such information is
essential to comply with the terms of the contract and upon written
approval from the contracting officer or contracting officer's
representative as delegated to submit this information. Otherwise, the
``Submission Requirements'' section states that contractors must
``submit digital information created or obtained in performance of this
contract to USAID at the finest level of granularity at which it was
collected.''
C. Comment: Commenter #16 questioned whether the contractor would
be able to effectively restrict access to sensitive data without fear
of losing funding.
Response: Some data might be exempted from submission under
subsection (f)(4) of the clause, including as determined by the
contracting officer or contracting officer's representative as
delegated in (f)(4)(ii). The rule provides for categories of
information not to submit to USAID. It further states that if the
Contractor believes there is a compelling reason not to submit specific
digital information that does not fall under an exemption in this
section, including circumstances where submission may jeopardize the
personal safety of any individual or group, the Contractor must obtain
written approval not to submit the digital information from the
contracting officer. Further specifics under an individual award may be
discussed with a contracting officer.
D. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) noted that they did not
believe it was necessary (or questioned when circumstances would
require) to provide copies of license agreements for digital
information or media releases.
Response: USAID believes it is critical for USAID to have
documentation regarding the licenses for the digital information
submitted to the DFD so that USAID understands the license parameters
for use of the data. As such, data licenses are a submission
requirement in this rule.
2. Informed Consent
A. Comment: Commenter #16 noted that the rule appears to
contemplate large collections of data for purposes that cannot be fully
known, which will negate the ability for truly informed consent to be
given.
Response: The contract itself will mandate the required information
to be collected and requirements relating to human subjects research
and USAID's data rights. The rule does not mandate new digital
information collections but provides guidance on the management of the
specific digital information collected under the contract. To the
extent the contractually required collection triggers informed consent
requirements under Human Subjects Research, this is governed by AIDAR
752.7012 (the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the
``Common Rule'').
B. Comment: Commenter #8 indicated if providing personal
information is a requirement for participation in an activity (such as
attending a training), then providing such information can no longer be
considered ``voluntary.'' This commenter recommended that the rule
explicitly address the rights of respondents/human subjects to
voluntarily provide (or not provide) this data/PII or to otherwise
restrict sharing of personal information.
Response: This rule does not address the provision of personal
information as a precondition to receiving services. Existing informed
consent requirements already address the voluntary provision of
information when respondents elect to participate in human subjects
research. Explicitly addressing the rights of respondents/human
subjects is outside the scope of this rule. Please also refer to
USAID's responses in C.4 of this section covering Protection of
Information.
C. Comment: Two commenters (11, 13) noted that Ref (f)(1)(v) refers
to AIDAR 752.7012; however, this only pertains to the protection of the
individual as a research subject, which is not applicable to every
contract.
Response: USAID has updated the rule to clarify that this
requirement applies only when AIDAR 752.7012 is included in the
contract. (See corresponding edits to 752.227-71(f)(1)(v)).
D. Comment: Commenter #14 requested clarity on 727.7002 Policy
(b)(3) noting that it is unclear if USAID is requiring that the
submission contain every signed consent form, an indication that each
individual submitted consent, or just a blank copy of the form itself.
They recommended adding clarifying language in 752.227-71.
Response: Paragraph (f)(1)(v) of this clause already instructs
contractors to provide a ``blank copy'' so no further edits are needed.
3. Preparation of Data
A. Comment: Commenter #8 expressed concerns that as written
proposed clause 752.227-71 requires submission of data scrubbed of PII.
They indicate that scrubbing qualitative data such as speech patterns
and other audio/video information is extremely costly and time
consuming without sufficient guidance. As such, they recommend
providing guidance on identifying high informational value qualitative
data and the process for de-identifying these data. Additionally, they
recommend: (1) clarifying the definition of ``machine readable'' to
exclude unstructured qualitative data like audio/video recordings,
interview/focus group notes and transcripts, and (2) revising
submission requirement (i) to state, ``Submit machine readable digital
information created or obtained in performance of this contract to
USAID at the finest level of granularity at which it was collected.''
Response: Since audio or visual files may contain PII, contractors
should work with their contracting officer representative to determine
whether the information is necessary to submit, if an alternative such
as a transcript or summary is acceptable, or an exemption from
submission is appropriate. The contractor should address considerations
for specific media formats and content during the development of the
Data Management Plan. In addition, the draft rule allows flexibility
for specific circumstances noting, ``If the Contractor believes there
[[Page 37950]]
is a compelling reason not to submit specific digital information that
does not fall under an exemption in this section, including
circumstances where submission may jeopardize the personal safety of
any individual or group, the Contractor must obtain written approval
not to submit the digital information from the contracting officer.''
(See 752.227-71(f)(4)(ii) of the Proposed Rule). No revisions to the
rule are necessary.
To the commenter's follow-up regarding ``machine readable'', USAID
has revised the final rule to indicate that the machine-readability
requirement applies only to digital data and datasets, thus excluding
digital objects like audio and video files (See edits to 752.227-
71(f)(1)(ii)). With regard to the recommendation on submitting digital
information at the ``finest level of granularity at which it was
collected,'' there already exists a requirement in 752.227-71(f)(1)(i)
to ``Submit digital information created or obtained in performance of
this contract to USAID at the finest level of granularity at which it
was collected.'' No further revisions are necessary. (See also response
to c(4)(A) of this section below)
B. Comment: Commenter #7 questioned whether there would be analog
options, noting that print outs of documents limit digital
functionality (i.e., a printed hyperlink cannot provide the additional
information that someone may access in a digital copy).
Response: 752.227-71(f)(1)(i) states: ``Use only digital methods
and USAID-approved standards to the extent practicable . . .'' This
allows for analog options in the event that digital methods are not
available or practicable.
4. Protection of Data
A. Comment: Some commenters (14, 16) expressed concerns about the
broadness of ``finest level of granularity'' and requested that
guidance be given as to how granular the data must be.
Response: Regarding the ``finest level of granularity'', some, but
not all, USAID contracts will provide technical details regarding the
level of granularity required. In the absence of such technical
guidance, contractors must collect digital information at a level of
granularity that allows them to comply with the terms of their award.
Barring specific exceptions outlined in the rule, contractors must
submit this digital information at the same level of granularity at
which it was obtained, rather than aggregating or otherwise
generalizing the information. USAID will not necessarily publish or
otherwise share data at the same level of granularity as submitted by
the contractor.
B. Comment: Commenter #16 noted that some international standards
reference `personal data' rather than PII, which protects broader
categories of information to prevent re-identification particularly in
areas with humanitarian concerns. Further, they noted that USAID
requirements may be contrary to local rules and regulations regarding
data protection and asked if partners will be given adequate support in
these situations.
Response: USAID adheres to definitions and standards set forth by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including those in OMB
Circular A-130, which defines personally identifiable information.
USAID has processes in place to manage re-identification risks
concerning personally identifiable information. In the event a USAID
partner identifies a potential concern under local law that could
impact their ability to plan for and adhere to the requirements of this
clause, they should identify that concern during the Digital
Information Planning process and contact their contracting officer
representative for additional guidance.
C. Comment: Commenter #11 questioned whether USAID would limit
methods, applications, or systems used for data collection; how USAID
will define when digital data collection methods are impractical; and
what process there is for Contractors to justify withholding data
information.
Response: This rule does not provide specific requirements
regarding applications and systems that contractors must use for data
collection. Whether certain methods are impractical will be fact
specific and should be addressed with the contracting officer
representative. As to the process for contractors to justify
withholding ``data information'' [sic], the rule states, ``(ii) If the
Contractor believes there is a compelling reason not to submit specific
digital information that does not fall under an exemption in this
section, including circumstances where submission may jeopardize the
personal safety of any individual or group, the Contractor must obtain
written approval not to submit the digital information from the
contracting officer.''
d. Clarity on Language and Requirements
1. Background, Authority, Timeline, and Editorial
A. Comment: Several commenters (8, 11, 13) requested clarity on
when to submit digital information noting that the clause says 30
calendar days but also has an option to submit when the information
meets the requirements of quality digital information or 30 days after
closeout. Some specifically noted that allowing submission after
closeout could allow the incumbent access to data which competitors for
a follow-on would not. Finally, one commenter (8) asked that USAID
consider providing additional time (rather than 30 days after contract
end) and resources (including funding) for data submission.
Response: With regard to clarification on the submission timeline,
USAID has updated the rule to emphasize that the contractor must adhere
to the ``schedule of the contract.'' Should a timeline for a specific
digital information not be specified in the award schedule, the
language as written requires the contractor to submit the information
``once it meets the requirements of quality digital information,''
regardless of when this criterion is met during the award period. This
is stated as a requirement, not as an option. This is intentional since
USAID often requires access to finalized (i.e., ``quality'')
information well before the end of a typical five year contract. As the
contract draws to a close, USAID also recognizes that valuable
information funded by the Agency may remain in the contractor's
possession, whether in draft or final ``quality'' form. For this
reason, there is an additional, non-optional requirement to submit any
``draft'' and ``quality'' digital information not previously submitted,
no later than 30-days after contract completion. The fact that the
incumbent may still have access to this information during the 30-day
period after contract completion does not in itself create a conflict
of interest for the incumbent. The clause already allows the contractor
to obtain approval from the contracting officer for variations to the
30 day submission period. Any costs associated with such submissions
should be anticipated and planned for during proposal submission.
B. Comment: Commenter #11 recommended adding ``as approved by
USAID's Chief Information Officer'' as in Section (f)(1)(vi)(D)(2)
throughout the rest of the section.
Response: USAID believes the language is sufficiently clear as
written.
C. Comment: Two commenters (11, 13) requested clarity on which
parts of the mandates listed in the section 727.7000 of the proposed
AIDAR text will be implemented in the Rule.
Response: By implementing this rule, USAID intends to enhance
compliance with several mandates which include
[[Page 37951]]
but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Broad sections of
OMB Circular A-130, with a particular focus on Section 5 e. which
outlines policy on ``Information Management and Access;'' (2)
Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, with a focus on Title
II, ``Open Government Data Act;'' (3) The 21st Century IDEA Act, with a
focus on Section 3, ``Website Modernization;'' and Section 4,
``Digitization of Government Services and Forms;'' (4) Foreign Aid
Transparency and Accountability Act, including Section 3 (c)
``Objectives of Guidelines;'' and (5) the Geospatial Data Act, with a
focus on Section 2806, ``Geospatial data standards.''
D. Comment: Commenter #8 noted that the benefit of supporting
institutional learning and public understanding of USAID program impact
should be more explicit in the introduction.
Response: USAID appreciates this comment but believes that the
preamble is sufficiently clear as written.
E. Comment: Commenter #11 asked whether digital information
requested includes only information obtained for the purpose of
implementing programmatic activities.
Response: USAID refers the respondent to ``727.7003 Contract
clause.'' This section specifies the insertion of the clause into
``contracts fully or partially funded with program funds. . . .''
Therefore, the primary focus of this clause is on activities resourced
with program funds. However, to limit burden, and per the definitions
of ``data'' and ``digital information'' in the clause, there would be
no requirement to submit ``information incidental to contract
administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing, or
management information.'' Please see also USAID's response to the
comment in (4)(B) of this section.
F. Comment: Commenter #13 indicated that 752.227-71(f) makes a
reference to (f)(4) which, the respondent suggests, does not exist.
Response: Section (f)(4) of 752.227-71 is entitled ``Exemptions.''
2. Digital Information, Methods, Objects, and Inventory
A. Comment: Two commenters (8, 12) requested a definition of
``digital methods'' per 752.227-71 and noted that as structured, the
proposed rule requires submission of digital data that cannot comply
with the machine-readable requirement (i.e., audio recordings,
transcripts).
Response: USAID has added a definition for ``digital methods'' to
Section 727.7001 and the clause 752.227-71(a). USAID appreciates the
comment highlighting the challenges with submitting audiovisual files
in machine readable format. In light of this issue, USAID has revised
the final rule to indicate that the machine-readability requirement
applies only to digital data and datasets. (See 752.227-71(f)(1)(ii)).
B. Comment: Commenter #11 requested a definition of both ``data
inventory'' and ``any digital object''.
Response: USAID appreciates these comments and has added
definitions for ``digital'' and ``data inventory'' to Section 727.7001
and the clause 752.227-71(a). USAID notes that ``digital object'' is
already defined in the clause.
3. Beneficiary Feedback
A. Comment: Commenter #8 requested clarity on how ``beneficiary''
is defined, and who will define the term (i.e., do Contractors identify
beneficiaries to elicit feedback from).
Response: This aspect of the rule is intended to implement a
recurring requirement of recent appropriations acts. Most recently, in
the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act Congress directed that
Development Assistance (DA) funds shall be made available for the
regular and systematic collection of feedback obtained directly from
beneficiaries to enhance the quality and relevance of such assistance.
The term ``beneficiary'' is not defined in this statute; its use herein
is intended to be consistent with its use in the AIDAR, agency internal
policies (Automated Directives Systems), and other agency policy and
procedural documents. At times the individuals who may be considered as
``beneficiaries'' for a particular contract may depend on the specific
nature of the contract and the implementation context. USAID believes
it is not necessary to create a unique definition of ``beneficiary''
for the purpose of this rule, no changes to the AIDAR text are made.
Specific concerns regarding identification of beneficiaries for an
award may be discussed with a contracting officer.
B. Comment: Commenter #11 requested more clarity on what USAID
means by ``feedback'' noting that there may be an appearance of
coercion as beneficiaries receive benefits from the program. Given that
potential conflict, will USAID use this feedback to assess contractor
performance or USAID's performance? Will questions be drafted and
solicited through USAID or the contractor?
Response: While USAID does not define the term ``feedback'' per se,
the AIDAR clause 752.242-71 contains the definition of ``feedback from
beneficiaries'', which emphasizes the voluntary nature of these
communications. As with any other data collection process managed by
USAID contractors, beneficiary feedback must not be collected through
coercion. Contractors must not withhold benefits based on whether a
beneficiary provides feedback or the nature of the feedback about the
benefits received.
Contracting officers may rely on information obtained from
beneficiary feedback, or any other sources, as appropriate in
evaluating past performance of offerors as permitted in the FAR. (For
examples see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), 13.106-2(b)(3)(ii)) and FAR 12.206).
Managers and decision-makers within USAID operating units will
determine if beneficiary feedback will also be used to assess USAID's
performance. As to whether questions for soliciting feedback from
beneficiaries will be drafted by USAID or the contractor, this will
depend on the specific contract and the final Activity MEL Plan which
should include the contractor's plans for collecting, responding to,
and reporting on feedback from beneficiaries, if required by the
contract. USAID may consult with contractors as necessary in developing
the Activity MEL Plan to ensure the proposed methods of collecting,
responding to, and reporting beneficiary feedback is appropriate under
the particular contract and activity.
C. Comment: Commenter #8 requested clarity on how the information
will be used and recommended verification via third party or further
guidance to prevent bias.
Response: USAID expects that contractors will review the feedback
they receive and use it in their management decision-making as noted in
the Federal Register notice to enhance the quality and relevance of
USAID programs and to maximize the cost-effectiveness and utility of
these programs for beneficiaries. We appreciate the recommendation that
USAID verify beneficiary feedback information via a third party; if
applicable, appropriate means of verifying contract compliance with
this rule will be determined for each contract by the contract officer
and contract officer's representative.
D. Comment: Commenter #12 requested clarity on the term ``cost-
effectiveness''--specifically whether contractors will be expected to
use feedback generally to over-all cost effectiveness or whether they
will perform a formal cost effectiveness analysis.
[[Page 37952]]
Response: USAID contractors will not generally be expected to
perform a formal cost effectiveness analysis solely based on
beneficiary feedback. Rather, USAID expects that feedback from
beneficiaries will be generally useful to the management decision-
making of the contractor, particularly regarding adaptations a
contractor might make to their implementation processes that could
improve cost-effectiveness and utility of the assistance provided to
beneficiaries.
E. Comment: Commenter #10 requested clarity on whether the
definition of ``regularly'' collected feedback that is ``appropriate''
and ``feasible'' will be determined by the contractor and USAID during
AMELP development.
Response: Rather than establishing the definition of ``regularly'',
USAID expects that a determination of ``regular'' feedback collection
will depend on the size and scope of the activity and will be
determined by the contractor and USAID during AMELP development, unless
the frequency of beneficiary feedback collection is specified in the
contract.
F. Comment: Commenter #14 requested clarity on if beneficiary
feedback data collection could be combined with other collections.
Response: Unless mandated to be collected and reported separately
by the award terms, beneficiary feedback may be combined with other
data collection efforts.
4. Finest Level of Granularity
A. Comment: Several commenters (9, 10, 11, 13, 15) requested
clarity on the term ``finest level of granularity'' with several
requesting that each contract should specify the level of detail (or
allow for flexibility to ensure protection of data) noting concerns
that a strict interpretation may result in turning over unnecessary,
sensitive data. One (10) commenter inquired whether the contractor will
use their own definitions of granularity or if there will be a USAID-
defined standard or template (or process to determine this level of
granularity) and questioned if the DFD submission would include any raw
data in digital form.
Response: Some, but not all, USAID contracts will provide technical
details regarding the level of granularity required. However, it is not
practical to pre-specify levels of data granularity in all contracts,
as the Agency may need to allow some contractor discretion in this
area. Therefore, during ``Digital information planning requirements''
as specified in paragraph (b) of the clause 752.227-71, contractors
should propose a level of granularity that allows them to comply with
the terms of their award. Barring specific exceptions outlined in the
clause 752.227-71, contractors must submit this digital information at
the same level of granularity at which it was obtained, rather than
aggregating or otherwise generalizing the information. Depending on the
requirements of the contract, the DFD submission process may include
the submission of raw data in digital form, to include entering raw
data in online DFD templates or the upload of entire datasets.
B. Comment: Some commenters (11, 12) requested further information
on how the granular data would be used and submitted--specifically
asking if it will only be for the purpose of implementing programmatic
activities.
Response: USAID's usage of the data will be determined by the data
rights clause in the contract.
C. Comment: Commenter #16 recommended removing the requirement to
share data at the finest level of granularity. Barring that, they
requested guidance for exemptions to prevent potential re-
identification of parties due to transmission of PII and potential data
leaks.
Response: USAID cannot remove the ``finest level of granularity''
requirement without jeopardizing its ability to accomplish its mission.
USAID is aware that re-identification risk increases with granularity
and appreciates that commenters are aware of this. To this end, USAID
has included exemptions from submission (See 752.227-71(f)(4)) and
indicated that PII submitted should be limited to the maximum extent
practicable (See 752.227-71(d)(2)). Moreover, USAID will not
necessarily publish or otherwise share data at the same level of
granularity as submitted by the contractor, especially if the
contractor submits sensitive data. Regarding the request for additional
guidance, this is outside the scope of this rule.
5. Digital Standards, Repositories, and Alternate Technologies
A. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) requested a definition of
alternate technology and information on how to know if the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) has approved it.
Response: Technologies that are approved for USAID use fluctuate
frequently, given the rapidly changing nature of technology itself.
This makes it impracticable to provide a list or definition of USAID's
approved technologies in a static document. Contractors must seek
approval to use alternate technologies by contacting their Contracting
Officer. The Contracting Officer will seek approval in consultation
with USAID's Office of the Chief Information Officer and USAID policy.
B. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) noted that the hyperlink
provided in (h) (<a href="http://data.usaid.gov/guidelines">data.usaid.gov/guidelines</a>) was inoperable and
requested access to the information for review.
Response: USAID will update the hyperlink to indicate
<a href="http://data.usaid.gov/standards">data.usaid.gov/standards</a> (see revised text in 752.227-71(h)). On April
14, 2023 USAID published a Notice of availability of a supplemental
document in the Federal Register (88 FR 22990) specifically noting that
USAID received requests under the comment period for this rule to
provide access to the standards. The supplemental document entitled
``USAID Digital Collection and Submission Standards'' was available for
comment. USAID collected those comments and provided a response to them
in this document.
C. Comment: Several commenters (11, 13, 14) requested information
on what the USAID approved standards are and if they will be provided
to contractors.
Response: USAID published the ``USAID Digital Collection and
Submission Standards'' in the Federal Register (88 FR 22990) on April
14, 2023 and provided a comment period for the public.
D. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) requested a definition of
USAID-approved by digital repository.
Response: USAID is not including a definition of a ``USAID-approved
digital repository'' in the rule as this determination is an internal
policy decision. USAID's policies on acceptable digital repositories
will be informed, in part, by the standards for digital repositories
developed by the interagency Subcommittee on Open Science of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). This includes those
found in the document Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories
for Federally Funded Research, released by OSTP in May 2022 (available
at: <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/05-2022-Desirable-Characteristics-of-Data-Repositories.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/05-2022-Desirable-Characteristics-of-Data-Repositories.pdf</a>).
E. Comment: Commenter #9 recommended using or aligning with the
International Aid Transparency Initiative rather than a USAID-approved
standard.
Response: Since the U.S. Government as a whole is a signatory to
IATI (see: <a href="https://iatistandard.org/en/news/united-states-marks-10-years-since-becoming-an-iati-signatory/">https://iatistandard.org/en/news/united-states-marks-10-years-since-becoming-an-iati-signatory/</a>), USAID has included IATI as a
recommended standard.
[[Page 37953]]
Should a data standard for a specific subject area not be available at
<a href="http://data.usaid.gov/standards">data.usaid.gov/standards</a>, the standard will be indicated in the
contract itself or provided to the contractor upon consultation with
the Contracting Officer.
F. Comment: Commenter #11 asked how USAID will define data
standards--in the contract or agreed upon in the data management plan.
Response: USAID published the ``USAID Digital Collection and
Submission Standards'' in the Federal Register (88 FR 22990) on April
14, 2023, and provided a comment period for the public.
6. Data Management Plan
A. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) requested clarity on the
requirements of a Data Management Plan with one noting that if DMP
requirements are outlined in ADS 579, they should be directly in the
rule as the ADS is USAID internal guidance.
Response: The preamble to the rule contains references to ADS 579
as background information only. However, the specific Data Management
Plan (DMP) requirements are outlined in the proposed clause in 752.227-
71(c)(2) What to submit.
B. Comment: Commenter #9 requested that contractors be allowed to
identify which data they cannot share with USAID along with an
appropriate justification.
Response: AIDAR 752.227-71(f)(4)(ii) indicates that ``[i]f the
Contractor believes there is a compelling reason not to submit specific
digital information that does not fall under an exemption in this
section, including circumstances where submission may jeopardize the
personal safety of any individual or group, the Contractor must obtain
written approval not to submit the digital information from the
contracting officer.''
C. Comment: Commenter #8 requested clarity on which types of data
and/or contracts will require a DMP.
Response: The rule, as revised, states that the clause applies to
``solicitations and contracts fully or partially funded with program
funds exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold.'' (See 727.7003
and 752.227-71) Paragraph (c) of this clause includes the DMP
requirements. As outlined in 727.7003, this paragraph is ``[reserved]''
and DMP requirements not applicable when the anticipated contract: (1)
does not collect data; (2) implements emergency food assistance under
the Food for Peace Act or section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, including for the procurement, transportation, storage, handling
and/or distribution of such assistance; (3) implements international
disaster assistance under section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 or other authorities administered by the Bureau for Humanitarian
Assistance; or (4) implements activities managed by the Bureau for
Conflict Prevention and Stabilization's Office of Transition
Initiatives, or fully or partially funded with the Complex Crises Fund.
D. Comment: Commenter #13 noted that not allowing digital
information collection until the DMP is approved may delay
implementation.
Response: The contractor must begin award implementation upon
formal approval of the award. However, digital information collection
must not begin prior to approval of the data inventory and submission
of any remaining components of the DMP unless authorized in writing by
the contracting officer. Based on multiple lessons learned, USAID
believes the value of requiring a DMP to far outweigh potential delays
in submissions.
E. Comment: Several commenters (8, 10, 11, 14) requested clarity on
the timeline, processes, and standards for DMPs--specifically
information on what the documentation will look like; how standards
will be defined that the contractor may be audited against; who will
review/approve DMPs and standards for such approval; how approval
officials will be trained as well as the timeline for review with a
recommendation that they be reviewed annually; whether USAID will
provide a template.
Response: This rule does not provide specific requirements on DMP
standards, review, approval, templates, or training of USAID officials.
Awards will have varying requirements on these matters, and partners
must consult the terms of their award for specific details. These
issues will be further addressed by USAID policy which USAID staff must
consult in providing direction to implementing partners. For additional
information, please consult ADS 579--USAID Development Data (available
at: <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-500/579">https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-500/579</a>).
F. Comment: Commenter #14 requested that the DMP be part of the
AMELP given that many of the requirements overlap (with another (11)
asking for clarity on if they are separate requirements.
Response: The requirement to submit a DMP is distinct from the
requirement to submit an Activity MEL plan. Both plans serve distinct
purposes, as described in the rule, and some activities that do not
require an Activity MEL plan may still require a DMP. Unless otherwise
precluded by the terms and conditions of their contract, contractors
required to submit both a DMP and an Activity MEL plan may submit a DMP
as a section of an Activity MEL plan or as a separate stand-alone plan.
7. Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan
A. Comment: Commenter #13 noted that the clause cites ADS 200/201
which is internal policy and requested that the clause itself address
plan requirements.
Response: The only reference to ADS 201 in the proposed AIDAR text
is included in section 742.1170-5, as a source of additional
information on USAID program cycle activity monitoring, evaluation and
learning. The clause at 752.242-71 fully addresses the requirements for
the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan.
B. Comment: Commenter #11 requested adoption of a longer timeline
to develop the Activity MEL Plan (currently 90 days) citing UK agencies
which use a six- to 12-month timeframe.
Response: Regarding the recommendation to adopt a longer timeline
to develop the Activity MEL Plan, USAID, after consideration of the
public comment, has determined to maintain the 90-day timeline, unless
otherwise specified in the contract schedule. OMB guidance M-18-04
regarding Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Departments
and Agencies that Administer United States Foreign Assistance
recommends that monitoring and evaluation be planned early. USAID's
experience has shown that adherence to a 90-day timeline has provided
sufficient time to generate an actionable AMELP without resulting in
significant programmatic delays. Without obtaining an AMELP from the
contractor in the early stages of activity implementation, USAID faces
decreased ability to determine that U.S. Foreign Assistance goals are
being met. Notably, AMELPs may be revised and updated, in coordination
with USAID, as additional information becomes available.
8. Risk
A. Comment: Commenter #16 requested that a limited purpose for the
collection be set out as well as time limits of data retention and
clear requirements for data security and literacy.
Response: The scope of the contract itself will provide clarity on
the purpose of the collection. USAID adheres to the requirements of the
Federal Records Act for the retention of records and any
[[Page 37954]]
retention requirements on contractors will be outlined in the award.
USAID requirements on data literacy and security are determined by the
Agency's internal policies. USAID requirements for the contractor on
data literacy and security would be outlined in the award.
B. Comment: Commenter #13 requested that paragraph (g)(2) be
amended to indicate that the government may direct an embargo for one
year when the contractor submits digital objects as mandating it may
result in ineligibility to bid for follow-on contracts.
Response: The rule as currently written indicates that the
``Contractor may request . . an embargo. . . .'' and that the
``contracting officer or delegated contracting officer's representative
may approve an embargo. . . .'' (See 752.227-71(g)(2), emphasis added)
This is intentionally permissive language. Per the August 25, 2022,
memo from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
entitled, ``Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally
Funded Research,'' USAID may approve embargoes, including those that
support foreign policy and international development objectives but
currently has no reason to mandate embargoes.
C. Comment: Commenter #13 requested that the rule allow for the
implementer to add a disclaimer of liability of information per section
(f)(vi)(B).
Response: Please note that contractors are already allowed under
752.227-71(f)(1)(vi) of the rule to ``provide additional details or
metadata'' regarding the ``quality of submissions of draft digital
information.'' This additional information would alert USAID, as well
as other potential users of the data, to any potential drawbacks of
using the submitted information to draw definitive conclusions.
D. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) requested information on who
will perform the ``rigorous risk assessment of digital information
submitted to USAID'' and whether there will be guidance or a timeline
provided; they additionally asked about permissions and restrictions to
digital information to the DFD and whether the public will have access.
Response: USAID's risk assessment process will begin after
submission of information via the DFD and will involve multiple experts
spanning several parts of the Agency. For additional information, ADS
579 outlines the existing implementation of this process. USAID will
apply permissions and restrictions to digital information submitted via
the DFD as consistent with its existing information technology policies
as outlined in the ADS 500 series. Information submitted via the DFD
may be entirely restricted from public view, made available to bona
fide research institutions, made partially available to the public, or
made entirely available to the public, in accordance with existing U.S.
government mandates, depending on the sensitivity of the information or
other legal considerations.
e. USAID Systems and Processes
1. Digital Portals
A. Comment: Several commenters (6, 11, 12, 13, 17) asked whether
this rule will retire existing digital portals such as the DEC, DDL,
DIS, FTFMS, and other Mission level systems and if so, that a list of
portals, processes, and protocols eliminated be provided with a
timeline to ease transition.
Response: The DFD is not its own system and is not intended to
replace other systems. It is a public facing web page with centralized
authentication that will direct users to the appropriate USAID systems
for which they have authorized access. This includes but is not
necessarily limited to the Development Information Solution (DIS),
Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC), and Development Data
Library (DDL). Upon publication of this rule, contractor requirements
in AIDAR Clause (DEC) 752.7005 will be eliminated.
B. Comment: Some commenters (6, 8, 13) wondered if legacy documents
from existing portals (DEC/DDL) will be available or if these portals
can be maintained during the transitional period (and if maintained,
how would they change)?
Response: Digital objects that are publicly available via the DEC,
DDL, and other public-facing data portals will continue to be available
as the DFD requirement is implemented.
C. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13, 17) asked that in the event
that other portals are not retired, under what circumstances would
contractors be required to submit to these other portals (i.e. the DIS;
or whether draft digital information goes to the DFD or another digital
repository).
Response: While the DEC and other submission clauses will be
retired upon implementation of this rule, the systems will continue to
exist in their current form. However, submission workflows into those
systems will take place via the DFD, reducing the total number of URLs
required to meet contractual requirements.
D. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) noted that the link to
<a href="http://dfd.usaid.gov">dfd.usaid.gov</a> is not live and requested access to review.
Response: The link to the DFD will be active upon publication of
the final rule.
E. Comment: Commenter #11 asked whether contractors will maintain
unique registrations on the DFD for each contract.
Response: The contractor can choose whether to assign a single
individual to submit information on behalf of multiple contracts or to
assign a single individual to submit information for each individual
contract. However, contractors must ensure compliance with the
requirements in the clause for each individual award.
F. Comment: Commenter #17 requested standard reporting templates
for submissions to the DFD and asked about integration of existing
monitoring tools. They (17) further asked about USAID's plan to address
technical challenges and limitations for global systems implementation
and learning curves/technical deficiencies internationally.
Response: Rather than providing standard USAID templates, the user
interface for each system will guide partners in entering the
information required. To address the learning curve associated with
these changes, USAID will continue to provide training, communications,
and instructional guides to facilitate the transition.
G. Comment: Commenter #8 noted that the current DDL platform has a
500-variable maximum for .csv submission resulting in large datasets
needing to be broken up into parts.
Response: The Agency is aware of technical limitations in
submitting datasets to the DDL and continues to work to make ongoing
enhancements to these technologies.
2. Revisions to Existing Policy
Comment: Two commenters (11, 13) asked whether ADS 302.3.5.21
(Submissions of Datasets to the Development Data Library (DDL) (October
2014)) will be removed or revised as the proposed rule removes AIDAR
752.7005 and the anticipated timeline for removal.
Response: Yes. USAID's internal policy guidance will be amended to
reflect the change to the AIDAR. The rule currently removes and
reserves AIDAR 752.7005.
3. Contracting Officer's Representative Approvals
A.Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) noted that language giving
Contracting Officer's Representative
[[Page 37955]]
discretion to change submission requirements may lead to confusion, and
commenter #11 recommended that COR discretion to tell a contractor
where to submit information should be on a mission basis instead.
Commenter #11 noted that requiring COR approval each time an exception
is necessary is prohibitively costly in politically insecure or
otherwise challenging environments.
Response: USAID believes that allowing COR discretion on submission
requirements is essential given that submission questions are often
fact specific. In addition, USAID is developing guidance for CORs and
USAID staff on how to handle such requests in order to ensure a
consistent approach to the greatest extent possible. This guidance will
also outline alternate technologies and USAID-approved repositories for
the submission of digital information. USAID does not agree that COR
involvement in granting exemptions is unreasonable in challenging
operational environments. To the maximum extent practicable, the
contractor should address these challenges during the digital
information planning process in order to mitigate unforeseen costs and
to obtain necessary approvals should such circumstances arise.
B. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) requested more information on
processes for the approval of digital information, to include whether
approvals of digital information are granted within or outside the DFD.
These commenters also requested information on the submission exemption
process.
Response: The means of granting approval will vary based on the
type of digital information submitted. USAID has updated the AIDAR
requirements in 752.227-71(f)(3)(i) to clarify that with the exception
of datasets, the Contractor must submit all other digital objects
within 30 days of obtaining the contracting officer or delegated
contracting officer representative's approval. This pre-submission
approval process will generally take place via email. The direct
submission of digital data (e.g. indicator data) and datasets via the
DFD will trigger a semi-automated approval process that will take place
directly within USAID information systems. This process will take place
via a combination of system-generated messages and email exchanges with
USAID personnel. Exemptions are already addressed in AIDAR 752.227-
71(f)(4) and will be granted on a case-by-case basis.
4. Exceptions and Oversight
A. Comment: Commenter #11 requested information on the process to
exempt data submission when the personal safety of an individual or
group is jeopardized.
Response: Circumstances that jeopardize the safety of an individual
or group can vary widely, and USAID will address these on a case-by-
case basis. To enable USAID to make an informed decision tailored to
the specific circumstance, AIDAR 752.227-71(f)(1)(vi)(A) requires that
the contractor furnish details and/or metadata regarding known
sensitivities within digital information that may jeopardize the
personal safety of any individual or group. In addition, contractors
should use the digital information planning process to identify any
potential security or safety concerns early in the activity to the
greatest extent possible.
B. Comment: Commenter #7 asked whether there would be USAID/
Washington oversight of the recommended contractual requirements.
Response: Contract Officers will monitor individual contracts for
compliance with submission requirements. In addition, USAID/Washington
will periodically monitor information systems to help ensure that
submissions received are consistent with planned submissions identified
by the contractor during the digital information planning process.
Members of the public who observe that documents or other digital
artifacts are missing from USAID's public websites are encouraged to
contact USAID directly. In some cases, these documents may be awaiting
further curation by staff or exempted from public disclosure due to
sensitivities or other legal considerations.
f. Applicability
1. Acquisition vs. Assistance
Comment: Several commenters (5, 6, 8) inquired about whether these
provisions would be for contracts only--specifically asking about the
use of the word `contractor' rather than `implementing partner'.
Response: This rulemaking action is to amend the AIDAR which is
USAID's supplement to the FAR. As such, this only pertains to
contracts.
2. Existing Contracts
Comment: Some commenters (8, 12) asked whether existing contracts
would be amended resulting in revisions to already approved AMELPs or
the need to develop DMPs and whether additional funding would be
provided for these actions.
Response: The requirements established by this rule will apply to
all new contracts that meet the applicability criteria defined in this
rule. However, USAID may modify, in accordance with FAR 1.108(d): 1)
existing indefinite delivery contracts to include the new AIDAR clauses
for future orders, and 2) existing contract or task or delivery order
when exercising an option or modifying a contract or order to extend
the period of performance.
3. Burden on Small Entities
A. Comment: Some commenters (11, 13) inquired as to the need to
apply these clauses to any contract above the micro-purchase threshold
noting the increased burden on small entities. They requested it to be
changed to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold.
Response: USAID accepts the recommendation to revise applicability
to contracts above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The
corresponding changes are made to sections 727.7003 and 752.227-71.
B. Comment: Commenter #11 noted that the requirement to submit
media release templates is particularly onerous to small business and
requested that images be allowed to be credited/captioned by source.
Response: In order to use photos submitted by contractors which
contain images of individuals, USAID must establish that the
individuals provided consent to appear in the photos. USAID therefore
requires media releases for these photos, which cannot be accomplished
via photo captioning.
C. Comment: Two commenters (10, 15) noted that requiring only
digital methods will carry substantial burden and cost which may
disadvantage local and new contractors. They recommend allowing a
broader range of approaches, from digital to manual (with digital being
preferred and used as appropriate and practical) and asked whether
USAID approval would be necessary.
Response: Should the contractor encounter obstacles adhering to
digital collection methods, the contractor must first identify these in
the Data Management Plan. USAID may allow for an alternative collection
method on a case-by-case basis per the exception in Section 752.227-
71(d)(1)(i). This exception may apply, for instance, to situations
where availability of or access to digital technologies is limited;
where the knowledge and capacity to use them may be limited; or
circumstances where their use may prove overly burdensome.
[[Page 37956]]
4. Other Applicability Questions
A. Comment: Commenter #6 asked whether this rule covers GIS data
projects that are submitted to Missions.
Response: The draft rule applies to ``digital information produced,
furnished, acquired, or collected in performance of a USAID contract,''
and therefore also applies to GIS data projects that may be submitted
to missions.
B. Comment: Commenter #15 asked if the rule is applicable only for
US Government standard indicators or custom indicators as well.
Response: The rule applies to both standard and custom indicator
data under the broader definition of ``digital information.''
g. Out of Scope
A. Comment: Several commenters (1, 2, 3, and 4) included comments
which were not within the scope of the rule including topics such as
Presidential visits, criticism of the agency broadly, questions about
registration, and concerns related to COVID vaccination.
Response: USAID acknowledges receipt of these out-of-scope
comments.
B. Comment: Commenter #13 inquired about USAID's response to the
Paperwork Reduction Act request for comments on the DIS Pilot.
Response: The DIS Pilot comments are addressed separately alongside
this rule.
C. Comment: Commenter #13 questioned the cost analysis--
specifically about the determination of respondents; whether the DIS
costs were included in the Rule; whether decommissioning of certain
portals was included; and whether the cost of design, testing, launch,
and management of the DFD system was considered.
Response: Please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for more
detail regarding respondents. Because DIS is intended to be an Agency-
wide portfolio management system covering the entire program cycle,
internal costs unrelated to this rulemaking effort were not included in
the RIA. Costs related to partner submission of information via the
Digital Front Door have been added to the revised RIA. USAID's long-
term vision is to combine the Development Experience Clearinghouse
(DEC) and Development Data Library (DDL) into a single digital
repository. As this repository is still in planning stages and is
outside the scope of this rulemaking, costs are not available, and
USAID did not take them into account in the RIA for this rulemaking.
Please see the revised RIA for detail on the estimated cost of
establishing the Digital Front Door.
D. Comment: Commenter #15 requested suggested language for informed
consent forms noting that in order to obtain informed consent, the
contractor will need to clearly describe how the data submitted to the
DFD will be accessed and used.
Response: Suggested language for informed consent is outside the
scope of this rule.
E. Comment: Commenter #8 noted that local partners under assistance
may lack the data management capacity to implement this rule.
Response: USAID's assistance awards are outside the scope of this
rule.
F. Comment: Commenter #11 requested a definition of forms of
informed consent, guidance on collection, and what forms of collection
are appropriate to document informed consent.
Response: USAID requirements relative to informed consent for human
subjects research are found in 22 CFR part 225 and are thus not covered
under the scope of this rule.
G. Comment: Commenter #15 requested that the rule include language
regarding coordination of contractors with in-country review boards and
other governing bodies.
Response: This is outside the scope of this rule which deals with
digital information planning, collection, and submission.
H. Comment: Two commenters (11, 13) questioned how USAID will
protect proprietary data if contractors submit such data in accordance
with (f)(1)(ii) from competitors; how USAID will share data security
issues with partners; and how USAID and the contractor will share data
security responsibility.
Response: These comments regarding USAID's security
responsibilities are beyond the scope of this rule. USAID is subject to
legal and policy requirements on implementing adequate safeguards for
handling business confidential and proprietary information. Contractors
must follow the terms of their award regarding security and privacy
requirements.
I. Comment: Commenter #16 indicated concern about the length of
time of data retention by USAID, data security for certain local
organizations who may lack expertise
Response: USAID retains and disposes of electronic records in
accordance with National Archives and Records Administration rules and
policies. Regarding concerns that local partners may lack data security
expertise and the need for support, this is outside the scope of the
rule.
J. Comment: Commenter #7 asked if the DMP requirements will relate
in any way to the USAID Digital Strategy requirements of a Digital
Learning Plan and the regular requirement of a Learning Agenda; and if
so, whether USAID will manage and communicate evolving guidance to
contractors on these various mandates.
Response: Specifics on how DMPs relate to internal USAID guidance
are outside the scope of this rule.
Summary of Changes and Response to Comments on the Notice of
Availability of Supplemental Document, Published in the Federal
Register at 88 FR 22990 on April 14, 2023
Three respondents submitted public comments in response to the
Notice. USAID reviewed the public comments in the development of the
final rule. Based on the comments, the supplemental document has been
revised as outlined in (i) below. Additionally, changes to the
``geospatial'' language have been made to align with USAID policy. Note
that the text is provided without hyperlinks in this document, but they
are available at <a href="http://data.usaid.gov/standards">data.usaid.gov/standards</a>. Below are the Agency's
responses to comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of
those comments are provided as follows:
h. Comment #1: requested information on how to access an account.
Response: This is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
i. Comment #2: noted that the inclusion of ``Metadata Creation
Tools'' may be inappropriate. They indicated that including specific
tools may give an appearance of preference or endorsement of such tools
as they may not be the best for the job and that updating the AIDAR
will take a long time potentially locking in the use of outdated tools.
Response: USAID has updated the standards to cite a non-exhaustive
list of potential metadata tools, rather than to explicitly list them
under ``Recommended Digital Information Technical Standards.''
j. Comment #3: indicated general support for rule and moving to
digital information. The respondent requested that there be policies to
standardize information collection in the Data Management Plan and
noted that USAID may be able to provide standardized templates for data
collection.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking.
USAID solicited comments as to the standards, including the text of
AIDAR 752.227-71(h) that refers to the standards. USAID
[[Page 37957]]
received comments on the Data Management Plan during the comment period
for the proposed rulemaking, and responses to those comments are
available in Section d.6 above.
Response to Comments on DIS Pilot
Seventeen respondents submitted public comments in response to the
DIS Pilot. USAID reviewed the public comments in the development of the
final rule. Below are the Agency's responses to comments on the DIS
Pilot. Some of the comments received will not be addressed as RIN 0412-
AA90 makes a response unnecessary. Those comments are summarized in the
section below. Additionally, some comments have already been addressed
in responses to comments received under the proposed rule which are
also summarized below. The Agency did not address comments unrelated
to, or outside the scope of, the 30-day Information Collection Notice:
k. General Support for the Collection
1. Comment: Commenter #17 indicated general support for the
collection. They noted that the rule will simplify reporting, reduce
redundant data calls, and reduce the burden on contractors.
Response: USAID acknowledges the support for the collection.
1. Comments That Are Superseded by the Rule
Comment: Two commenters (14, 17) requested information on the
burden estimate. Commenter #14 questioned the benefit of the system.
Commenter #10 questioned which countries had to implement the pilot.
Two commenters (3, 17) questioned the length of the pilot, if the pilot
results would be made public, how data migration will occur after the
pilot, what language should be included in contracts, and whether RIN
0412-AA90 would be published for comment. Several commenters (3, 12,
13, 14, 16, 17) asked about API and connections to other data systems,
standardizing requirements and guidance, concern regarding
reidentification and other security risks, what data would need to be
submitted, cost allowability, information about approvals and how data
will be used, reporting frequency, data aggregation, what indicator
information would be used as well as if they can be customized, and
other process questions about the pilot. Commenter #3 asked about an
OIG Audit and its impact on the pilot. Commenter #8 indicated that on
Item 20, Sec 2 (``<a href="http://login.gov">login.gov</a> username''), the instructions on the access
form do not clarify what the username is or if IPs already have one.
Commenter #8 also requested clarity on what IPs are expected to do in
DIS.
Response: The pilot, applicable to several missions, ended with
publication of RIN 0412-AA90. Questions around benefits, API
connections, adding contract language, standardization, security,
submission requirements, reporting, access forms and other items
related to the pilot are superseded by the text of the Rule. The rule
also clarifies what contractors must do when submitting digital
information to USAID.
m. Comments That Have Been Answered Through Comment Responses to the
Rule
Comment: Commenter #13 asked about whether staff will be able to
access more than one project or see across a variety of projects.
Commenter #2 requested that the system be aligned to build upon the
Common Data Model for Nonprofits. Commenter #13 asked about what the
Development Experience Clearinghouse is. Commenter #14 asked about
integration of various USAID platforms (the Development Data Library,
for example).
Response: USAID has provided robust responses to these questions in
response to comments received under the rulemaking. Specifically, see
sections B.2)(e)(1)(E); B.2)(d)(5); and B.2)(e)(1)(A)-(C) of the
Federal Register Notice for RIN 0412-AA90 which includes the text of
relevant comments and responses.
n. Access to Data
1. Comment: Commenter #4 questioned whether a prime contractor will
have to enter data for subcontractors or whether the subs will have
separate access to enter their data directly.
Response: The clause requires the contractor to submit all digital
information produced, furnished, acquired or collected in performance
of this contract by its subcontractors at any tier. While some USAID
systems may allow delegation of the submission role, it remains the
responsibility of the prime contractor to ensure the submission of the
digital information per the requirements of the rule.
2. Comment: Several commenters (8, 13, 15) asked about system
access. Specifically, whether the system will have a place to specify
roles in the ``implementing partner user information'' section; how IPs
can manage employees offboarding from the system when they leave the IP
or award; and whether the system will be open to allow all users to see
information or be limited by award.
Response: The system will have a place to specify user roles. The
COR will assign the contractor a user role within the system. Once
assigned a user role, the contractor will manage further access to the
award, including during offboarding. Submitters will only be able to
see data for awards with which they are associated in the system; data
access is not open to all users.
3. Comment: Commenter 16 asked whether the public will be able to
access the data in the DIS system.
Response: USAID will release data to the public from its internal
systems in keeping with its internal policies as informed by US
Government and international transparency commitments. USAID will not
provide direct public access to the DIS system.
o. System Design Information
1.Comment: Commenter #3) asked if USAID had a help center for DIS
and requested a FAQ page.
Response: Contractors can email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79380a123d302a390c0a18101d571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6d5f4768657f6c595f4d4548024b435a">[email protected]</span></a> for help center
assistance. The DIS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document for
contractors is found on the USAID public website (available at: <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/partner-with-us/resources-for-partners/development-information-solution/faqs">https://www.usaid.gov/partner-with-us/resources-for-partners/development-information-solution/faqs</a>).
2.Comment: Commenter #13 asked if the DIS will be the place where
they enter information about indicators or just view them once reports
are submitted.
Response: Per the Rule, USAID contractors will submit all digital
information to one centralized portal, the USAID Digital Front Door
(DFD). The DFD is intended as a submission mechanism, whereas viewing
will take place via established USAID systems and websites.
3. Comment: Commenter #13 asked who is responsible for setting up
the website for each respective project in DIS (if there are specific
indicators being reported for each of the projects).
Response: USAID operating units are responsible for establishing
activities in DIS within a contract. The person with the COR role in
DIS is responsible for establishing the indicators associated with the
activity.
4. Comment: Commenter #13 asked if the system will allow for
central level viewing of an IP portfolio.
Response: The system currently does not allow for linkages among
multiple activities to provide a central portfolio view for an
implementing partner.
[[Page 37958]]
p. USAID Approval and Oversight
Comment: Commenter #16 requested comment on when comprehensive
information about the structure and operation of the DIS system will be
available.
Response: USAID will continue to provide information on the
Agency's public DIS website (available at: <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/partner-with-us/resources-for-partners/development-information-solution">https://www.usaid.gov/partner-with-us/resources-for-partners/development-information-solution</a>) as it becomes available.
q. Outside the Scope
Comment: Many commenters (1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11) submitted comments
that were outside the scope of the DIS Pilot.
Response: USAID acknowledges receipt of these out-of-scope
comments.
USAID Digital Collection and Submission Standards
We are publishing the revised Collection & Submission Standards in
this final rule. As noted in the regulatory text, the standards can
also be found at <a href="http://data.usaid.gov/standards">data.usaid.gov/standards</a> with hyperlinks:
USAID's Digital Collection and Submission Standards are a
compendium of standards for USAID staff and contractors to use in
support of USAID programs and operations. The standards in Section A
are required. Section B contains recommended standards that represent
industry best practices.
Section A: Required Digital Information Technical Standards
I. File Format Standards
A. Acceptable Non-Proprietary Formats
1. Text and Documents
(a) Portable Document Format (PDF/A is preferred, however .pdf is
acceptable)
(b) Plain text (.txt)
(c) LaTeX documents (.tex)
(d) Hypertext Markup Language (.html)
(e) Open Document Format (.odt)
(f) Extensible Markup Language (.xml)
(g) JavaScript Object Notation (.json)
2. Tables, Spreadsheets, and Databases
(a) Comma-Separated Values (.csv)
(b) Tab-separated tables (.txt--sometimes .tsv)
(c) Comma-separated tables (.csv or .txt)
(d) Other standard delimiter (e.g. colon, pipe)
(e) Fixed-width
(f) OpenDocument Spreadsheet (.ods)
3. Audio Files
(a) WAVE (.wav)
(b) FLAC (.flac)
(c) MPEG-3
(d) MP3
4. Image Files
(a) JPEG (.jpg or .jp2)
(b) Portable Network Graphics (.png)
(c) TIFF (.tiff or .tif)
(d) Portable Document Format (.pdf)
5. Video Files
(a) Video File (.mov)
(b) MPEG-4 (mp4)
(c) JPEG2 2000 (mj2)
6. Geospatial Files
(a) QGIS Project (.qgs)
(b) ESRI Shapefile (.shp, .shx, .dbf)
(c) Annotated TIFF Raster Files (.tif)
(d) Keyhole Mark Language (.kml)
(e) Geographic Data Format based on JSON (.geojson)
(f) Google Earth GIS Format (.kml, .kmz)
(g) Well Known Text for Spatial Objects (.wkt)
(h) Raster GIS File Format
(i) Unidata Scientific Data Format
II. Subject Area Standards
A. Narrative Text
1. Digital narrative text that is written in the English language,
including narrative about USAID programs and operations, must comply
with the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and associated guidelines and
resources found on the federal plain language website. Because USAID
may publish a narrative in keeping with the U.S. Government legislative
requirements (e.g. the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act
of 2016) and other transparency commitments (e.g. International Aid
Transparency Initiative; Open Government Partnership) or Freedom of
Information Act requests, the narrative must be clear, thorough, and
descriptive to facilitate public understanding.
B. Geospatial
1. The location(s) where an activity is implemented must be
collected at the Exact Site Location. Exact Site Location is defined as
a populated place, an actual exact site location, or an exact area or
line feature. The location(s) of the activity's intended beneficiaries
must be collected at least at the first level administrative boundary.
When the location of the activity's intended beneficiaries is
considered nationwide, it must be collected at the country/territory
level. USAID follows the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC)
Standard and additional geospatial data standards as outlined in ADS
579saa ``Geographic Data Collection and Submission Standards'' and ADS
579mab ``Activity Location Data.''
C. Date
1. YYYY-MM-DD.
Section B: Recommended Digital Information Technical Standards
USAID recommends the following standards that have not been
formally adopted as a requirement by the Agency, but encouraged and
recommended for use to improve the management, quality and usefulness
of the data. USAID recommends the use of the following standards when
appropriate and practicable:
I. Code, Algorithm, and Analytical Files.
A. Javascript (.js)
B. Java
C. .NET
D. Python (.py)
E. Ruby (.rb)
F. R (.r)
G. SQL
II. GS1 Standards--USAID-funded programs beyond Global Health are
strongly recommended to adopt GS1 Standards for the supply chain to
facilitate product identification, location identification, and product
master data of Agency-funded commodities. Additional guidance for
implementation of GS1 Standards can be found here.
III. Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange (SDMX) for statistical
data.
IV. CGIAR Ontologies for crop and agronomy ontology.
V. FHIR for healthcare data exchange.
VI. ISO 8601 for Date, Time, and Time Zone.
VII. Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Standards for geospatial
data. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is an international
consortium of more than 500 businesses, government agencies, research
organizations, and universities driven to make geospatial (location)
information and services FAIR--Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and
Reusable..
VIII. International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
IX. FAIR Data Principles--To the extent possible, USAID-funded data
and metadata must align with data principles which are Findable,
Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.
Resources for creating metadata to meet these standards include,
but are not limited to, the following:
I. Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) Tools.
II. USGS TKME--A Windows platform tool for creating FGDC-CSDGM
which can be configured for Biological Data Profile and other
extensions. The software program is closely aligned with the Metadata
Parser, and can be configured for French and Spanish.
III. mdEditor--Create ISO and FGDC-CSDGM metadata with this web-
based tool.
[[Page 37959]]
IV. Data dictionary conversion service--Convert a data dictionary
table to/from metadata format (instructions).
V. USDA Metavist--A desktop metadata editor for creating FGDC-CSDGM
for geospatial metadata. Includes the Biological Data Profile (version
1.6). Produced and maintained by the USDA Forest Service. Download the
USGS Alaska Science Center (ASC) Metavist User Guide [PDF] to learn
more about the tool and ASC best practices for authors.
VI. Microsoft XML Notepad--A simple intuitive user interface for
browsing and editing XML files. Does not automatically produce FGDC-
CSDGM records but allows easy editing and validation of existing
metadata records. See Advanced Users to learn how to configure this
tool.
C. Regulatory Considerations and Determinations
(1) Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This final rule was drafted in accordance with Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, and E.O. 13563. OMB has
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action,'' as
defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended, and is therefore
subject to review by OMB. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
(2) Expected Cost Impact on the Public
USAID remains committed to reducing the burden on its contractors
while maximizing taxpayer value. By launching the USAID Digital Front
Door (DFD) as outlined in this clause, USAID intends to reduce the
total number of portals through which its contractors must submit
information to USAID, thereby reducing time and effort and improving
operational efficiency.
The following is a summary of the impact on contractors awarded
contracts that include the new AIDAR clause. The cost estimates were
developed by subject matter experts based on USAID's experience
collecting reports and information products through the Development
Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) (see AIDAR 752.7005) and piloting
digital data collection through the Development Data Library (DDL) and
the Development Information Solution (DIS).
This rule results in a total annualized (7% discount) public net
cost of $2.5 million. This annual burden takes into account the current
baseline that contractors already prepare, maintain, and submit AMELPs,
already remove PII from data prior to submission, already collect
standard indicator data, and already request embargoes and data
submission exemptions from Contracting officer's Representative on a
case-by-case basis. Further, since contractors already submit documents
and data to the DEC and DDL, these costs were removed from the overall
estimated cost. The following is a summary of the annual public costs
over a 20-year time horizon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Public Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... $1,867,000 $1,867,000
2....................................... 2,650,000 2,650,000
3....................................... 2,703,000 2,703,000
. . .................................... 2,756,000 2,756,000
20...................................... 2,756,000 2,756,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total undiscounted costs............................ 65,988,000
Present Value (PV) of Costs Discounted at 7%........ 54,072,000
Annualized Costs Discounted at 7%................... 2,514,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule has extensive benefits for the public, contractors, the
research community, the private sector, and the USG, though many of
these benefits are challenging to quantify. Overarchingly, this rule
will increase efficiency for contractors, minimize data errors, and
improve the privacy and security of data. Further, this rule will help
contractors to produce data assets that are trustworthy, high-quality,
and usable by the general public and the research community for
accountability, research, communication, and learning. For the public,
there is an immense richness in the data collected by USAID and its
partners around the world, and this data holds the potential to improve
the lives of some of the world's most vulnerable people. When a
development project ends, the data can yield new insights for years or
decades into the future. It is the responsibility of the Agency and
those representing the government to ensure that data is accessible,
standardized, and secure. Finally, these estimates have been downwardly
adjusted since the publication of the proposed rule to reflect USAID's
responses to comments from the public.
In addition, under current protocols, USAID contractors are
required to submit digital information to USAID under multiple award
requirements using several different information management portals.
The maintenance of these separate portals has made it challenging for
USAID to integrate this information strategically to render a more
holistic and detailed view of its global portfolio. By implementing
these changes, USAID intends to reduce administrative burden on
contractors and USG staff.
(3) Regulatory Flexibility Act
USAID does not expect this rule to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. USAID has
therefore not performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA).
(4) Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection requirements that have
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This information
collection requirement has been assigned OMB Control Number 0412-0620,
entitled ``AIDAR: Planning, Collection and Submission of Digital
Information and Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plans to
USAID''. Following receipt of comments, USAID has made several
revisions to this collection to downwardly adjust the burden.
Specifically, USAID revised the applicability of 752.227-71 from the
micro purchase threshold to the simplified acquisition threshold.
Similarly, USAID has added an Alternate clause exempting certain
contracts from the requirement to provide a data management plan.
Specifically, contracts are exempted that: contain no data; are for
emergency food assistance; are for disaster assistance, and transition-
assistance
[[Page 37960]]
activities managed by the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA); or
are for activities managed by the Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization's Office of Transition Initiatives (CPS/OTI). For
additional detail, please see the Regulatory Impact Assessment as well
as responses to comments in sections B. 2)(g)(C) and B. 2)(f)(3)(A)
above.
Additionally, USAID posted a 60-Day Notice of Information
Collection: Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals (the ``DIS Pilot'')
in the Federal Register at 85 FR 83027 on December 21, 2020. USAID
published a 30-Day Notice including a response to comments received on
May 25, 2021 and solicited additional comments (See 86 FR 28053).
Following receipt of additional comments, USAID, with approval from
OMB, is providing a response to comments received to the 30-day
Collection Notice with this Rulemaking. As the ``DIS Pilot'' collection
has been discontinued due to this rulemaking action, this separate
information collection approval request has been canceled.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 727, 742, and 752
Government procurement.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID amends 48 CFR
chapter 7 as set forth below:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 727, 742, and 752 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C.
2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR
1979 Comp., p. 435.
SUBCHAPTER E--GENERAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
PART 727--PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS
0
2. Add subpart 727.70 to read as follows:
Subpart 727.70--Digital Information Planning, Collection, and
Submission Requirements
Sec.
727.7000 Scope of subpart
727.7001 Definitions
727.7002 Policy
727.7003 Contract clause.
Subpart 727.70--Digital Information Planning, Collection, and
Submission Requirements
727.7000 Scope of subpart.
(a) This part prescribes the policies, procedures, and a contract
clause pertaining to data and digital information management. It
implements the following requirements:
(1) Digital Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act of 2014;
(2) Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (``Evidence
Act'') of 2018;
(3) 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (21st Century
IDEA Act);
(4) Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability (FATAA) Act of
2016;
(5) Geospatial Data Act of 2018;
(6) OMB Circular A-130.
(b) [Reserved]
727.7001 Definitions.
As used in this subpart--
Data means recorded information, regardless of form or the media on
which it may be recorded. The term includes technical data and computer
software. The term does not include information incidental to contract
administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing, or
management information.
Data asset is a collection of data elements or data sets that may
be grouped together.
Data inventory is the first component of a Data Management Plan
(DMP). The data inventory is a list of high-value data assets that the
contractor anticipates producing during the period of award
performance.
Data management plan (DMP) is a tool that guides the identification
of anticipated data assets and outlines tasks needed to manage these
assets across a full data lifecycle.
Data set is an organized collection of structured data, including
data contained in spreadsheets, whether presented in tabular or non-
tabular form. For example, a data set may represent a single
spreadsheet, an extensible mark-up language (XML) file, a geospatial
data file, or an organized collection of these. A data set does not
include unstructured data, such as email or instant messages, PDF
files, PowerPoint presentations, word processing documents, images,
audio files, or collaboration software.
Digital means the coding scheme generally used in computer
technology to represent data.
Digital data means quantitative and qualitative programmatic
measurements that are entered directly into a computer. Examples
include numeric targets established during activity design or
implementation; baseline, mid-line, or final measurements created or
obtained via field assessments; surveys or interviews; performance
monitoring indicators as specified in the Contractor's approved
Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (AMELP) (see 752.242-71);
evaluation results; or perception metrics collected from beneficiaries
on the quality and relevance of International Disaster Assistance and
Development Assistance.
Digital information is a subset of data and means:
(1) Digital text;
(2) Digital data;
(3) Digital objects; and
(4) Metadata created or obtained with USAID funding supported by
this award that are represented, stored, or transmitted in such a way
that they are available to a computer program.
Digital method is a means of using computer technology to gather,
process, analyze, transmit, store, or otherwise use data and other
forms of information.
Digital object includes digital or computer files that are
available to a computer program. Examples include digital word
processing or PDF documents or forms related to activity design,
assessment reports, periodic progress and performance reports, academic
research documents, publication manuscripts, evaluations, technical
documentation and reports, and other reports, articles and papers
prepared by the contractor, whether published or not. Other examples
include data sets, spreadsheets, presentations, publication-quality
images, audio and video files, communication materials, information
products, extensible mark-up language (XML) files, and software,
scripts, source code, and algorithms that can be processed by a
computer program.
Digital text includes text-based descriptions of programmatic
efforts that are entered directly into a computer, rather than
submitted as a digital object.
727.7002 Policy.
(a) It is the policy of USAID to manage data as a strategic asset
to inform the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation of the Agency's foreign assistance programs. To achieve
this, it is also USAID's policy to manage data and digital information
across a full life cycle. This life cycle includes the following
stages: Govern, Plan, Acquire, Process, Analyze, Curate, and Publish/
Share. For more information about the USAID Development Data policy,
see ADS Chapter 579 at <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-500/579">https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-500/579</a>. For more information about USAID's Program Cycle
policy, see ADS Chapter 201 at <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-200/201">https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-200/201</a>.
(b) In furtherance of this policy, USAID requires that contractors:
[[Page 37961]]
(1) Engage in digital information planning, including creating a
Data Management Plan (DMP) to identify and plan for the management of
data assets that will be produced, furnished, acquired, or collected in
a USAID-funded activity.
(2) Use only digital methods and USAID-approved standards, to the
extent practicable, to produce, furnish, acquire, or collect
information necessary to implement the contract requirements.
(3) Provide documentation of informed consent the contractor
receives when obtaining information on individuals.
(4) Submit to USAID digital information produced, furnished,
acquired, or collected in performance of a USAID contract at the finest
level of granularity employed during contract implementation.
(c) As specified in ADS Chapter 579, USAID implements appropriate
controls to restrict data access in a way that balances the potential
benefits with any underlying risks to its beneficiaries and
contractors.
727.7003 Contract clause.
(a) Insert the clause 752.227-71 to USAID in Section H of
solicitations and contracts fully or partially funded with program
funds exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting
officer may insert this clause in other USAID contracts if the
contracting officer, in consultation with the requiring office,
determines that doing so is in the best interest of the Agency.
(b) Insert the clause at 752.227-71, with its Alternate I when the
anticipated contract:
(1) Does not collect data;
(2) Implements emergency food assistance under the Food for Peace
Act or section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including for
the procurement, transportation, storage, handling and/or distribution
of such assistance;
(3) Implements international disaster assistance under section 491
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or other authorities administered
by the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance; or
(4) Implements activities managed by the Bureau for Conflict
Prevention and Stabilization's Office of Transition Initiatives, or is
fully or partially funded with the Complex Crises Fund.
SUBCHAPTER G--CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
PART 742--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
Subpart 742.11--Production, Surveillance, and Reporting
0
3. Amend 742.1170-3, by redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) through (7) as
paragraphs (b)(3) through (8) and adding a new paragraph (b)(2).
The addition reads as follows:
742.1170-3 Policy.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The contract requirements for an activity monitoring,
evaluation, and learning plan, as applicable;
* * * * *
0
4. Add 742.1170-5 to read as follows:
742.1170-5 Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan
requirement and contract clause.
(a) When the requiring office needs information on how the
contractor expects to monitor implementation performance and context,
conduct or collaborate on an evaluation, and generate evidence to
inform learning and adaptive management, the contracting officer may
require the contractor to submit an Activity Monitoring, Evaluation,
and Learning Plan (AMELP) tailored to specific contract requirements.
For more information on monitoring, evaluation, and learning during the
design and implementation of activities, see ADS Chapter 201 at <a href="https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-200/201">https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-200/201</a>.
(b) Unless instructed otherwise in writing by the requiring office,
the contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.242-71 in section
F of solicitations and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition
threshold, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The
contracting officer may insert this clause in other USAID contracts if
the contracting officer, in consultation with the requiring office,
determines that an Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan
is necessary, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The clause is not required to be included in contracts for:
(1) Supplies and services that USAID acquires for its own direct
use or benefit;
(2) Emergency food assistance under the Food for Peace Act or
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including for the
procurement, transportation, storage, handling and/or distribution of
such assistance;
(3) International disaster assistance under section 491 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or other authorities administered by the
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance; or
(4) Activities managed by the Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization's Office of Transition Initiatives, or fully or partially
funded with the Complex Crises Fund.
SUBCHAPTER H--CLAUSES AND FORMS
PART 752--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
5. Add 752.227-71 to read as follows:
752.227-71. Planning, Collection, and Submission of Digital
Information to USAID.
As prescribed in AIDAR 727.7003, insert the following clause in
Section H of solicitations and contracts:
Planning, Collection, and Submission of Digital Information to USAID
(JUN 2024)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause--
Computer is a fixed or mobile device that accepts digital data
and manipulates the information based on a program or sequence of
instructions for how data is to be processed.
Data means recorded information, regardless of form or the media
on which it may be recorded. The term includes technical data and
computer software. The term does not include information incidental
to contract administration, such as financial, administrative, cost
or pricing, or management information.
Data asset is a collection of data elements or data sets that
may be grouped together.
Data inventory is the first component of a Data Management Plan
(DMP). The data inventory is a list of high-value data assets that
the contractor anticipates producing during the period of award
performance.
Data management plan (DMP) is a tool that guides the
identification of anticipated data assets and outlines tasks needed
to manage these assets across a full data lifecycle.
Data set is an organized collection of structured data,
including data contained in spreadsheets, whether presented in
tabular or non-tabular form. For example, a data set may represent a
single spreadsheet, an extensible mark-up language (XML) file, a
geospatial data file, or an organized collection of these. A data
set does not include unstructured data, such as email or instant
messages, PDF files, PowerPoint presentations, word processing
documents, images, audio files, or collaboration software.
Digital means the coding scheme generally used in computer
technology to represent data.
Digital data means quantitative and qualitative programmatic
measurements that are entered directly into a computer. Examples
include numeric targets established during activity design or
implementation; baseline, mid-line, or final measurements created or
obtained via field assessments; surveys or interviews;
[[Page 37962]]
performance monitoring indicators as specified in the Contractor's
approved AMELP; evaluation results; or perception metrics collected
from beneficiaries on the quality and relevance of International
Disaster Assistance and Development Assistance.
Digital information is a subset of data and means:
(i) Digital text;
(ii) Digital data;
(iii) Digital objects; and
(iv) Metadata created or obtained with USAID funding regarding
international development or humanitarian assistance activities
supported by this award that are represented, stored, or transmitted
in such a way that they are available to a computer program.
Digital method is a means of using computer technology to
gather, process, analyze, transmit, store, or otherwise use data and
other forms of information.
Digital object includes digital or computer files that are
available to a computer program. Examples include digital word
processing or PDF documents or forms related to activity design,
assessment reports, periodic progress and performance reports,
academic research documents, publication manuscripts, evaluations,
technical documentation and reports, and other reports, articles and
papers prepared by the Contractor under this contract, whether
published or not. Other examples include data sets, spreadsheets,
presentations, publication-quality images, audio and video files,
communication materials, information products, extensible mark-up
language (XML) files, and software, scripts, source code, and
algorithms that can be processed by a computer program.
Digital repository refers to information systems that ingest,
store, manage, preserve, and provide access to digital content.
Digital text includes text-based descriptions of programmatic
efforts that are entered directly into a computer, rather than
submitted as a digital object.
Draft digital information refers to digital information that, in
the professional opinion of the Contractor, does not adhere to the
information quality standards such that it presents preliminary,
unverified, incomplete, or deliberative findings, claims, analysis,
or results that may lead the consumer of such material to draw
erroneous conclusions.
Granularity refers to the extent to which digital content or
objects provide access to detailed, distinct data points. Coarse
granularity generally means that distinct data points reflect
larger, representational units or have been joined together or
aggregated, thus providing less detail. A fine level of granularity
generally means that distinct data points reflect smaller,
individualized units that have not been aggregated, thus providing a
higher level of detail. For example, a data set containing a list of
every activity conducted by week would generally exhibit a finer
level of granularity than a data set listing the various categories
of activities conducted by month. The degree of granularity can be
relative to the contents of a specific data set and can be
geographic, temporal, or across other dimensions.
Information quality standards means the elements of utility,
objectivity, and integrity collectively.
Integrity is an element of the information quality standards
that means information has been protected from unauthorized access
or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised
through corruption or falsification.
Machine readable means data in a format that can be easily
processed by a computer without human intervention while ensuring
that no semantic meaning is lost.
Metadata includes structural or descriptive information about
digital data or digital objects such as content, format, source,
rights, accuracy, provenance, frequency, periodicity, granularity,
publisher or responsible party, contact information, method of
collection, and other descriptions.
Objectivity is an element of the information quality standards
that means whether information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased
as a matter of presentation and substance.
Personally identifiable information (PII) means information that
can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either
alone or when combined with other information that is linked or
linkable to a specific individual. [See Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, Managing Federal Information as a
Strategic Resource.] PII can include both direct identifiers (such
as name, health identification numbers, etc.), and indirect
identifiers (geographic location, age) that when linked with other
information can result in the identification of an individual.
Publication object is a digital object that has been accepted
for publication prior to the end date of this contract and whose
content is based on or includes any other digital information
created or obtained in performance of this contract. In the research
community, a publication object is often synonymous with a quality
research manuscript that has been accepted by an academic journal
for publication. However, publication objects can also consist of
other digital objects (e.g., photos, videos, etc.) published via
news media, the internet, or other venues.
Quality digital information means digital information that, in
the professional opinion of the Contractor, adheres to the
information quality standards and presents reasonably sound and
substantiated findings, claims, analysis, or results regarding
activities.
Registered with the USAID Digital Front Door (DFD) means: that--
(i) The Contractor entered all mandatory information required to
obtain access to the DFD.
(ii) The Contractor agrees to abide by the DFD terms and
conditions of use.
(iii) The Government has validated the Contractor's registration
by providing access to the DFD.
USAID Digital Front Door (DFD), located at <a href="http://dfd.usaid.gov">dfd.usaid.gov</a> is a
website where the Contractor transacts business with USAID, such as
submitting digital information.
Utility is an element of the information quality standards that
means whether information is useful to its intended users, including
the general public, and for its intended purpose.
(b) Digital information planning requirements. The Contractor
must engage in digital information planning to ensure compliance
with the collection and submission of all digital information, as
required under this award.
(c) Data Management Plan (DMP)--(1) What is required. The
Contractor must prepare and maintain a Data Management Plan (DMP)
that reflects the digital information planning requirements outlined
in paragraph (b) of this clause.
(2) What to submit. The DMP must be appropriate to the
programmatic scope and context of the contract, and to the nature
and complexity of the data to be collected or acquired in the course
of the contract. The DMP must address, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Data inventory; and
(ii) If requested in writing by the Contracting Officer,
(A) Protocols for data collection, management and storage;
(B) Protocols for maintaining adequate safeguards that include
the privacy and security of digital information collected under the
award;
(C) Documentation that ensures other users can understand and
use the data;
(D) Protocols for preserving digital information and
facilitating access by other stakeholders; and
(E) Terms of use on data usage, publication, curation, or other
dissemination plans.
(3) When to submit. The Contractor must develop and submit, at a
minimum, the data inventory component of the DMP to the contracting
officer for approval within ninety (90) days after contract award,
unless the contracting officer establishes a different time period.
The Contractor must submit the remaining components of the DMP to
the contracting officer for approval, as soon as they become
available. The contractor must not begin digital information
collection prior to approval of the data inventory and submission of
any remaining components of the DMP unless authorized in writing by
the contracting officer.
(4) When to revise. The Contractor must revise the DMP as
necessary throughout the period of performance of this contract. Any
revisions to the plan must be approved by the contracting officer or
contracting officer's representative as delegated.
(d) Digital information production and collection requirements.
(1) The Contractor must:
(i) Use only digital methods to the extent practicable to
produce, furnish, acquire, or collect information in performance of
this contract. If the Contractor is unable to consistently collect
data using digital methods, the Contractor must obtain the
contracting officer or delegated contracting officer's
representative's approval for any alternative collection method.
(ii) Collect digital information at the finest level of
granularity that enables the Contractor to comply with the terms of
this contract.
(2) To the extent practicable, the Contractor must limit the
collection of PII to only that
[[Page 37963]]
which is necessary to comply with the requirements of the contract.
(e) Registration requirements. The Contractor must:
(1) Be registered with the USAID Digital Front Door (DFD) within
ninety (90) days after award of this contract; and
(2) Maintain access to the DFD during the period of performance
of this contract.
(f) Submission requirements--(1) What to submit. Unless an
exemption in paragraph (f)(4) of this section applies, the
Contractor must:
(i) Submit digital information created or obtained in
performance of this contract to USAID at the finest level of
granularity at which it was collected.
(ii) Submit digital information in nonproprietary formats and
digital data and data sets in machine readable formats. The
Contractor may also submit proprietary formats in addition to a
nonproprietary format.
(iii) Submit a copy of any usage license agreement that the
Contractor obtained from any third party who granted usage rights
for the digital information.
(iv) Submit a copy of any photo or media release template that
the Contractor used to obtain permission from any third party for
the use of the photo or media.
(v) When the contract includes AIDAR clause 752.7012, Protection
of the Individual as a Research Subject, provide a blank copy of the
form, document, instructions, or other instruments used to obtain
informed consent from persons whose individual information is
contained in the original version of the digital object.
(vi) If applicable, provide additional details or metadata
regarding:
(A) Where and how to access digital information that the
Contractor submits to a USAID-approved digital repository or via
alternate technology as approved by USAID's Chief Information
Officer;
(B) The quality of submissions of draft digital information;
(C) Known sensitivities within digital information that may
jeopardize the personal safety of any individual or group, whether
the Contractor has submitted the information or has received a
submission exemption;
(D) Digital information for which the Contractor was unable to
obtain third party usage rights, a media release, or informed
consent or which has other proprietary restrictions.
(2) Where to submit. The Contractor must submit digital
information through the DFD, unless specifically authorized by the
contracting officer in writing to submit to a USAID-approved digital
repository instead or via alternate technology as approved by
USAID's Chief Information Officer.
(3) When to submit. (i) With the exception of data sets, the
Contractor must submit all other Digital Objects within 30 days of
obtaining the contracting officer or delegated contracting officer
representative's approval. Unless otherwise specified in the
schedule of the contract or otherwise instructed by the contracting
officer or delegated contracting officer's representative, the
Contractor must submit data sets and all other digital information
created or obtained in performance of this contract to USAID once it
meets the requirements of quality digital information. Unless
otherwise approved by the contracting officer in writing, within
thirty (30) days after the contract completion date, the Contractor
must submit all digital information not previously submitted,
including both draft digital information and quality digital
information required under this contract.
(ii) Upon written approval of the contracting officer or
delegated contracting officer's representative, the Contractor must
submit draft digital information to USAID when the ``best
available'' information is required in order to meet time
constraints or other programmatic or operational exigencies.
(4) Exemptions. (i) The Contractor must not submit digital
information through the DFD that contains:
(A) Classified information.
(B) Personally identifiable information. The Contractor must, to
the maximum extent possible, remove the association between the set
of identifying data and the individual to which it applies unless
retaining such information is essential to comply with the terms of
this contract and upon written approval from the contracting officer
or delegated contracting officer's representative to submit this
information.
(ii) If the Contractor believes there is a compelling reason not
to submit specific digital information that does not fall under an
exemption in this section, including circumstances where submission
may jeopardize the personal safety of any individual or group, the
Contractor must obtain written approval not to submit the digital
information from the contracting officer.
(5) Approval requirements. Upon receipt of digital information
submitted by the Contractor, the contracting officer or delegated
contracting officer's representative will either approve or reject
the submission. When a submission is rejected, the Contractor must
make corrections and resubmit the required information. USAID does
not consider the submission accepted until the contracting officer
or delegated contracting officer's representative provides written
approval to the Contractor.
(g) Publication considerations. (1) If the Contractor produces a
publication object, the Contractor must submit via the DFD a copy of
the publication object, the publication acceptance notification,
along with a link at which the final published object may be
accessed.
(2) For any digital object the Contractor submits in compliance
with the terms of this contract, the Contractor may request from the
contracting officer or delegated contracting officer's
representative an embargo on the public release of the digital
object. The contracting officer or delegated contracting officer's
representative may approve an embargo request that is for no more
than 12 months at a time, with additional scrutiny for digital
objects relied upon for journal publication. A determination on this
request will be provided to the Contractor in writing.
(3) If the Contractor used a digital object previously submitted
via the DFD to generate the publication object, and that digital
object is governed by a pre-existing embargo, that embargo will
expire on the day the publication object is scheduled for
publication. USAID may elect to publish digital information on which
the publication object is based as early as the date the publication
object is scheduled for publication.
(h) USAID digital collection and submission standards. The
Contractor must comply with the version of USAID's Digital
Collection and Submission Standards in effect on the date of award
as outlined at <a href="http://data.usaid.gov/standards">data.usaid.gov/standards</a>. If the Contractor is unable
to adhere to USAID's Digital Collection and Submission Standards,
the Contractor must obtain USAID's written approval for an
alternative approach.
(i) Access to the digital information. USAID will conduct a
rigorous risk assessment of digital information that the Contractor
submits to USAID to determine the appropriate permissions and
restrictions on access to the digital information. USAID may release
the data publicly in full, redact or otherwise protect aspects of
the information prior to public release, or hold the information in
a non-public status.
(j) Obligations regarding subcontractors. (1) The Contractor
must furnish, acquire, or collect information and submit to USAID,
in accordance with paragraph (f) of this clause, all digital
information produced, furnished, acquired, or collected in
performance of this contract by its subcontractors at any tier.
(2) The Contractor must insert the terms of this clause, except
paragraph (e) of this clause, in all subcontracts.
(End of clause)
Alternate I (JUN 2024). As prescribed in AIDAR 727.7003, substitute
the following paragraph (c) for paragraph (c) of the basic clause:
(c) [Reserved]
0
6. Add 752.242-71 to read as follows:
752.242-71 Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan
As prescribed in AIDAR 742.1170-5, insert the following clause in
section F of solicitations and contracts.
Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (JUN 2024)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause--
Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP) means
a plan for monitoring, evaluating, and collaborating, learning, and
adapting during implementation of a USAID contract. Some USAID
documentation may refer to ``MEL Plan'' or ``Activity MEL Plan''.
These terms are synonymous.
Contract will be interpreted as ``task order'' or ``delivery
order'' when this clause is used in an indefinite-delivery contract.
Evaluation means the systematic collection and analysis of data
and information about the characteristics and outcomes of the
programming carried out through a contract, conducted as a basis for
judgments, to understand and improve effectiveness and efficiency,
and timed to inform decisions about current and future programming.
[[Page 37964]]
Feedback from beneficiaries means perceptions or reactions
voluntarily communicated by a beneficiary of USAID assistance about
the USAID assistance received.
Indicator means a quantifiable measure of a characteristic or
condition of people, institutions, systems, or processes that might
change over time.
Learning activity means efforts for the purpose of generating,
synthesizing, sharing, and applying evidence and knowledge.
Monitoring context means the systematic collection of
information about conditions and external factors relevant to
implementation and performance of the contract.
Output means the tangible, immediate, and intended products or
consequences of contract implementation within the Contractor's
control or influence.
Outcome means the conditions of people, systems, or institutions
that indicate progress or lack of progress toward the achievement of
the goals and objectives of the contract.
Performance indicator means an indicator that measures expected
outputs and/or outcomes of the contract implementation.
Target means a specific, planned level of results to achieve
within a specific timeframe with a given level of resources.
(b) Requirements. (1) Unless otherwise specified in the schedule
of the contract, the Contractor must develop and submit a proposed
AMELP to the contracting officer or delegated contracting officer's
representative within ninety (90) days of contract award. The
contracting officer or delegated contracting officer's
representative will review and provide comments within thirty (30)
days after receiving the proposed AMELP. The Contractor must submit
a final AMELP for contracting officer or delegated contracting
officer's representative approval no later than 15 days after
receiving comments.
(2) The Contractor must revise the AMELP as necessary during the
period of performance of this contract. Any revisions to the plan
must be approved by the contracting officer or delegated contracting
officer's representative.
(c) Content. (1) The Contractor's proposed AMELP must include,
at a minimum, the following:
(i) The Contractor's plan for monitoring, including any existing
systems or processes for monitoring progress, any Standard Foreign
Assistance Indicators as agreed upon by the contracting officer or
delegated contracting officer's representative, any other USAID
required indicators, and other relevant performance indicators of
the contract's outputs and outcomes, their baseline (or plan for
collecting baseline), and targets; and
(ii) The Contractor's plan for regular and systematic collection
of feedback from beneficiaries, responding to feedback received, and
reporting to USAID a summary of feedback and actions taken in
response to the feedback received, or a rationale for why collecting
feedback from beneficiaries is not applicable for this contract.
(2) The Contractor's proposed AMELP must be appropriate to the
size and complexity of the contract and address the following, as
applicable:
(i) Plans for monitoring context and emerging risks that could
affect the achievement of the contract's results;
(ii) Plans for any evaluations to be conducted by the
contractor, sub-contractor or third-party, including collaboration
with an external evaluator;
(iii) Learning activities, including plans for capturing
knowledge at the close-out of the contract;
(iv) Estimated resources for the AMELP tasks that are a part of
the contract's budget; and
(v) Roles and responsibilities for all proposed AMELP tasks.
[End of clause]
752.7005 [Removed and Reserved]
0
7. Remove and Reserve 752.7005.
Jami J. Rodgers,
Chief Acquisition Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-09373 Filed 5-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 6, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.