[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 [email protected] 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: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf). 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, www.regulations.gov. 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) (data.usaid.gov/guidelines) was inoperable and 
requested access to the information for review.
    Response: USAID will update the hyperlink to indicate 
data.usaid.gov/standards (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: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/05-2022-Desirable-Characteristics-of-Data-Repositories.pdf).
    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: https://iatistandard.org/en/news/united-states-marks-10-years-since-becoming-an-iati-signatory/), USAID has included IATI as a 
recommended standard.

[[Page 37953]]

Should a data standard for a specific subject area not be available at 
data.usaid.gov/standards, 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: https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-500/579).
    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 
dfd.usaid.gov 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 data.usaid.gov/standards. 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 (``login.gov 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 [email protected] for help center 
assistance. The DIS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document for 
contractors is found on the USAID public website (available at: https://www.usaid.gov/partner-with-us/resources-for-partners/development-information-solution/faqs).
    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: https://www.usaid.gov/partner-with-us/resources-for-partners/development-information-solution) 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 data.usaid.gov/standards 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 https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-500/579. For more information about USAID's Program Cycle 
policy, see ADS Chapter 201 at https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-200/201.
    (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 https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-200/201.
    (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 dfd.usaid.gov 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 data.usaid.gov/standards. 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