Practitioner Community

USAID DIV Proposal Attachments:

Attachment 1: So, you want to build an App?

A Guide for Humanitarian Accountability of Technology (HAT)

Click Here to View the Guide

Attachment 2: HAT Project Partnering Diagram

USAID DIV Project Partnering Diagram

Attachment 3: Project Activities Diagram

Activities Structure and Supporting Work-Streams (SWSs)

HAT Project Activities and SWSs

Attachment 4: Project Budget Table

Screen Shot 2023-07-05 at 8.56.33 AM

Letters of Reference

Partner Commitments/Letters of Support

Notations and Citations

  1. Fejerskov, Clausen, & Seddig. (2021. August 17) Risks of technology use in humanitarian settings: Avoiding harm, delivering impact. DIIS (Policy Brief.). Accessible at:  https://www.diis.dk/en/research/risks-of-technology-use-in-humanitarian-settings-avoiding-harm-delivering-impact
  2. Rejali, S., and Heiniger, Y. (2020) Editorial The Role of Digital Technologies in Humanitarian Law, Policy and Action: Charting a path forward. International Review of the Red Cross, 102 (913), 1–22. Digital technologies and war. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/reviews-pdf/2021-03/digital-technologies-humanitarian-law-policy-action-913.pdf
  3. Madianou, Mirca. (2019). Technocolonialism: Digital Innovation and Data Practices in the Humanitarian Response to Refugee Crises. Social Media + Society 5. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Racism/SR/RaceBordersDigitalTechnologies/Mirca_Madianou.pdf
  4. Dette, R. (2018). Do No Digital Harm: Mitigating Technology Risks in Humanitarian Contexts. In: S. Hostettler, S. N. Besson, & J. C. Bolay (Eds), Technologies for Development. UNESCO 2016. Springer, Cham. Accessible at:  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-91068-0_2/tables/1
  5. Kalkman, J.P. (2018). Practices and consequences of using humanitarian technologies in volatile aid settings. International Journal of Humanitarian Action 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-018-0029-4
  6. Jacobsen, K. L. (2017). The politics of humanitarian technology: good intentions, unintended consequences and insecurity. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Politics-of-Humanitarian-Technology-Good-Intentions-Unintended-Consequences/Jacobsen/p/book/9781315777276
  7. ‘Technical’ is a term used by both humanitarians and technologists to refer to the core work of their own profession. This can create confusion when these parties are working together to negotiate the requirements and design of humanitarian digital projects.
  8. Humanitarian Accountability is a foundational term that captures HO’s accountability to their mission and to those they serve defined as: “the means by which power is used responsibly in service to crisis-affected persons.” See the first page of the 2010 HAP Standard for: Human Accountability Partnership. (2010). The 2010 HAP Standard in Accountability and Quality Management. (2010 edition). Accessible at:  https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/07/2010-hap-standard-in-accountability.pdf
  9. The Core Humanitarian Standards presents nine current day commitments that encompass the operational accountability of humanitarian action to the humanitarian mission and those they serve, as expressed across: the humanitarian imperative & principles, Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, the ICRC Code of Conduct, quality standards, and evaluation criteria. Accessible at: https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20English.pdf
  10. Lin, Y., Mays, R.E. (2022, Jan 27-28). STEM Ethical Culture: A focus on the behavior of the scientist, not the science. [Conference presentation]. The Intercultural Ethics and Technology 2022 Conference, Netherlands. Accessible at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0ReUkEpgy4
  11. Jacobsen, K. L. (2017). The politics of humanitarian technology: good intentions, unintended consequences and insecurity. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Politics-of-Humanitarian-Technology-Good-Intentions-Unintended-Consequences/Jacobsen/p/book/9781315777276
  12. Cardia, I. V., Holzer, A., Xu, Y., Maitland, C., & Gillet, D. (2017). Towards a principled approach to humanitarian information and communication technology. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, ICTD 2017 [3136588]. 9th Association for Computing Machinery International Conference, Lahore, Pakistan. https://doi.org/10.1145/3136560.3136588
  13. Read, R., Taithe, B., & Mac Ginty, R. (2016). Data hubris? Humanitarian information systems and the mirage of technology. Third World Quarterly, 1314-1331. Accessible at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296475394_Data_hubris_Humanitarian_information_systems_and_the_mirage_of_technology
  14. Renzaho, A. (2007). Measuring effectiveness in humanitarian and development aid: conceptual frameworks, principles and practice. NY: Nova Science Publishers. Accessible at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293272496_Measuring_effectiveness_in_humanitarian_and_development_aid_Conceptual_frameworks_principles_and_practice
  15. The problem of poor ROI of technology on social impact has been extensively researched. Two seminal publications on this gap are: Ackerman, Mark. "The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility." Human-Computer Interaction (L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.) 15, no. 2 (2000); and more recent and relevant to HICT failures is: Toyama, K. (2015) Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. Public Affairs, U.S. where Toyama breaks down decades of evidence challenging the claim that technology delivers social progress.
  16. Sandvik, K., Gabrielsen Jumbert, M., Karlsrud, J., & Kaufmann, M. (2014). Humanitarian technology: A critical research agenda. International Review of the Red Cross, 96(893), 219-242. Accessible at: https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/humanitarian-technology-critical-research-agenda
  17. Read, R., Taithe, B., & Mac Ginty, R. (2016). Data hubris? Humanitarian information systems and the mirage of technology. Third World Quarterly, 1314-1331. Accessible at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296475394_Data_hubris_Humanitarian_information_systems_and_the_mirage_of_technology
  18. On design culture, see Keshavarz, M. (2023). Design: The colonial imaginary of Humanitarian good(s). In Mitchell, K. & Pallister-Wilkins, P. (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Philanthropy and Humanitarianism. (Chapter 10). Routledge. Accessible at: https://books.google.be/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=PmGmEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT179&dq=%22humanitarian+design%22&ots=JlL4ip966s&sig=lA4DFFHrYsiDsO5ri6E7RhB492k&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true
  19. HOs consistently refine tools and approaches for assessing and evaluating the actual impact of their assistance on persons lives.  Two broadly developed and recent iterations include: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2021, Mar 15). Applying evaluation criteria thoughtfully. OECD. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en; and Groupe URD (2018) Quality and Accountability Compass; Putting quality and Accountability into practice. Accessible at: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/quality-and-accountability-compass-2018-version
  20. In addition, technical sectors and individual HOs develop their own highly researched and sophisticated tools for ensuring humanitarian accountability and technical quality of their projects and programming work. E.g. Health Sector/Cluster Humanitarian Health Quality of Care Toolkit at:  https://healthcluster.who.int/publications/m/item/humanitarian-health-quality-of-care-toolkit ; IFRC Project/Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Guide at: https://preparecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/IFRC-ME-Guide-8-2011.pdf ; or World Vision Learning through Evaluation with Accountability and Planning (LEAP) Guide at: https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/LEAP_2nd_Edition_0.pdf
  21. Sandvik, K., Jacobsen, K., & McDonald, S. (2017). Do no harm: A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation. International Review of the Red Cross, 99(904), 319-344. doi:10.1017/S181638311700042X. Accessible at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-the-red-cross/article/do-no-harm-a-taxonomy-of-the-challenges-of-humanitarian-experimentation/21D82019D70985DEE475DBBBDE60D192
  22. ATTACHMENT 1:  So, You Want To Build An App? A guide for humanitarian accountability of digital products and services.  https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#hat-guide;  Mays, R.E., Abou-Samra, O., Dailey, D. Lijnse, B. (2023).  So, You Want To Build An App? A guide for humanitarian accountability of digital products and services. Global Disaster Preparedness Center.
  23. References 23-26 cites the foundational research conducted by Robin Mays, et al, with the GDPC to define humanitarian effectiveness in the context of successful work and the operational requirements to support it; Mays, R. E., Walton, R., Lemos, M., Haselkorn, M. (2014). Valuing what works: Success factors in disaster preparedness. An independent analysis of Red Cross/Red Crescent practitioner needs. Accessible at: https://preparecenter.org/wp-content/sites/default/files/valuingwhatworks_26nov.pdf
  24. We occasional use the phrase “analog programming work” within this proposal to refer to an integrated, robust, individual and collective technical expertise (to include hidden or tacit knowledge) embodied by the experience of humanitarian practitioners and their organizations, developed over time and iterated into the designs of processes, tools and practices. It spans across organizational departments, positions, and specialized trainings and is (explicitly and tacitly) weaved into organizational policies stemming from hiring to community engagement to designing sectoral programs. It includes critical elements necessary for achieving successful humanitarian outcomes and is represented in our team’s research as the Wheel of Successful Practice. (Ref #23, page 7)
  25. Mutuality is a success factor in humanitarian effectiveness “expressed as shared authority among parties and characterized by a sense of mutual belonging, ownership and accountability…Mutual authority describes the relational acknowledgement that all are receiving, all are contributing, and all belong; and therefore, all may hold one another accountable to what has been agreed upon, no matter what traditional hierarchies or perceptions of power might be otherwise recognized.” (Ref#23, page 14-16)
  26. Community Agency is one of four identified “Must-Haves” consistently found among successful humanitarian projects and defined as “when a community recognizes and is confident in its own knowledge, capacities, and ability to determine its own best solutions, coming to act and advocate on its own behalf to bring about positive change. Practitioners reflected community agency as the only truly viable route for acquiring key knowledge needed for successful, effective, long-lasting results.” (Ref#23 pages 24-32)
  27. We introduce socio-technical as a bridge for transparency and understanding with tech creators for incorporating and assessing for the humanitarian technical quality (usually evaluated via social impact, hence the socio-) into digital project designs.  We use the term socio-technical throughout the HAT guide in reference to the merging of both the engineering and the humanitarian technical work systems, and the dynamic influence and/or dependencies they each have on the other within HICTs. Socio = Quality of humanitarian output/outcomes (humanitarian accountability, theory of change, do no harm, social impact, programmatic excellence, etc). Technical = Quality of the technological product (engineering/build/usability). (See Ref#22, Terms and Definitions).  The term emerged out of the software engineering community as an "underlying premise of socio-technical thinking is that systems design should be a process that takes into account both social and technical factors that influence the functionality and usage of computer-based systems." See: Baxter and Sommerville, Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering, Interacting with Computers, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 4–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003.  Accessible at: https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article/23/1/4/693091?login=false
  28. Digital Impact Alliance. (2016). Principles for Digital Development. USAID.gov. https://digitalprinciples.org/
  29. As signatories with legal obligations to their stated missions, HOs, and their donors, are considered HOs because they are committed to the guiding laws and measures of humanitarian accountability such as those established by International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the ICRC Code of Conduct and Guiding Principles, Human Rights, and Core Humanitarian Standards, and whose primary advocacy and funding is to their stated humanitarian missions.
  30. Human-Centered Design and Engineering (HCDE) has many variations on meanings and methods. In the engineering discipline, it has been defined as “an approach to interactive systems development that aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques. This approach enhances effectiveness and efficiency, improves human well-being, user satisfaction, accessibility and sustainability; and counteracts possible adverse effects of use on human health, safety and performance”. ISO 9241-210:2019(E). Overall, it is a field of design that seeks direct feedback from users in the technology design and development process, but can often be misunderstood to suggest that users are given agency or decision-making control for technology design and development decisions.
  31. Agile is highly iterative way developers seek to engage more with users to determine technical design requirements.  “The agile manifesto contains the central values which proposes to place more emphasis on people, interaction, working software, customer collaboration, and change, rather than on processes, tools, contracts and plans during software development”; Abrahamsson P., Salo O., Ronkainen J., Warsta J., Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis (No. VTT 478), 2002 Oulou, Finland VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Baxter and Somerville observe Agile’s simple focus on individual misses the holistic social view, See: Gordon Baxter, Ian Sommerville, Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering, Interacting with Computers, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 4–17 (see 4.8 Field work), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003
  32. Technical Requirements are “the software specifications that…define the software you are producing and the constraints on its operations.” Somerville, Ian (2016) Software Engineering (10th Edition).Pearson Higher Education, Inc. (pg 9). In the context of HICTs, the HAT guide defines them as engineered digital supports for our humanitarian mission requirements.  (see ref#22, Terms and Definitions)
  33. Information Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is an academic community and field of study focused on the research of ICTs within international development and humanitarian contexts.
  34. ATTACHMENT 2: HAT Project Partnering Diagram https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#diagram
  35. To access previous publications on the humanitarian systems research conducted over the past decade with the GDPC, see UW/HCDE/COSSAR’s listing at https://depts.washington.edu/cossar/research/publications/
  36. National Science Foundation (NSF) Award Abstract #1926036 Standard: Collaborative Research: Changing Ethical STEM Culture through Interdisciplinary Dialogue and Analysis of Humanitarian Information and Communication Technology. Accessible at: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1926036&HistoricalAwards=false
  37.  Mays, R., Braxton, M., Berry, A., & Robinson, J. (2016). Considering Practitioner-Driven Innovations: Accommodating Information Systems Within Successful Humanitarian Work. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation. Trondheim: IEEE. Accessible at:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350976141_Mays_etalPractitioner-Driven_InnovationsIEEE2016
  38. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The Movement. ICRC  https://www.icrc.org/en/movement
  39. For example, see commitments made by USAID: USAID Digital Strategy 2020-2024: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Digital_Strategy_Factsheet_Feb2022.pdf; Or by the United Nations: United Nations (2018, September). The Secretary General's Strategy on New Technologies. Accessible at: https://www.un.org/en/newtechnologies/;  And, the UN General Assembly’s 2020 Road map for digital cooperation: implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. Report of the Secretary-General. 29 May 2020. https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2F74%2F821&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False
  40. Buluswar, S., (2020, Sep 30). Technology for Social Impact: Taking Stock of the Field, What is Working, and What is Not. California Management Review. https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2020/09/technology-for-social-impact/
  41. See UN OCHA's 2021 ‘technology report’ based on the stated belief (unsubstantiated) that to meet humanitarian objectives, anticipatory action can be more cost effectively achieved through new technologies: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/digital-promise-frontline-practice-new-and-emerging-technologies-humanitarian-action
  42. See the New Humanitarian's collection of "success stories of efficiency and effectiveness are mixed with tales of false dawns and unintended consequences," Retrieved 30 Jun 2023 at:  https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/in-depth/humanitarian-technology
  43. Toyama, K. (2015) Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. Public Affairs, U.S.
  44. One Laptop Per Child, for example. See: Wooster, M. (2018, May 24) The Spectacular Failure of One Laptop Per Child. Philanthropy Daily. https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-spectacular-failure-of-one-laptop-per-child/
  45. Authors note “Importantly, we found limited evidence and rather anecdotal evidence of “what works”." See: Vinck P, Khan S. Playbook - Technologies in Humanitarian Settings: Engagement and Local Innovation. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. 2022. Accessible at: https://hhi.harvard.edu/sites/hwpi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/playbook_final_20230901.pdf?m=1674074823
  46. Madianou, Mirca. (2019). Technocolonialism: Digital Innovation and Data Practices in the Humanitarian Response to Refugee Crises. Social Media + Society 5. Accessible at:  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Racism/SR/RaceBordersDigitalTechnologies/Mirca_Madianou.pdf
  47. Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora and Raymond, Nathaniel A. (2017) "Beyond the Protective Effect: Towards a Theory of Harm for Information Communication Technologies in Mass Atrocity Response," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 11: Iss. 1: 9-24. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.11.1.1454 Also see references 1-6.
  48. Dé, Rahul (2016). Societal impacts of information and communications technology. IIMB Management Review 28(2), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2016.04.002. Accessible at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389616300167
  49. Duffield, M. (2013). Disaster-Resilience in the Network Age Access-Denial and the Rise of Cyber-Humanitarianism. Danish Institute for International Studies. Accessible at:  https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13344
  50. Mays, R.E. (2018). Toward Better Design of Humanitarian ICT: A Social Agency-Centered Framework of Humanitarian Information Needs Based on a Grounded Study of Successful Red Cross/Red Crescent Practitioners. (Publication No. 10935494) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.  Accessible at: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/43241
  51. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-Technical Systems: From Design Methods to Systems Engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23 (1), 4-17. Accessible at: https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article/23/1/4/693091?login=false
  52. The RCRC International Conference are statutory meetings held every two years to gather NSs and their member States to convene and decide on movement wide issues, strategy and policy decisions. https://rcrcconference.org/
  53. For example, IFRC's Solferino Academy is a close partner who hosts multiple innovation events annually: https://solferinoacademy.com/event/
  54. E.g. ELRHA, A global organisation focusing on complex humanitarian problems through research and innovation (previously Humanitarian Innovation Fund, HIF). ALNAP, a global humanitarian learning network of NGOs, UN agencies, members of the Red Cross/Crescent Movement, donors, academics, networks and consultants, and other innovation networks.
  55. We are active members to Interaction, the Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) Group, and the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), a global network of non-governmental organisations whose mission is to make humanitarian action more principled and effective.
  56. We closely network with thought-leaders from Information Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D, https://www.ict4dconference.org/) a community focused on technology for international development and humanitarian settings, and Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW, https://cscw.acm.org/2023/), a prestigious academic field of study and annual conference that focuses on technology design and development for social interactions and contexts, highly influential in big tech, and Information Systems in Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM, https://iscram.org/).
  57. We are active members of the International Humanitarian Studies Association (IHSA, https://ihsa.info/) and their biannual conference, The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN, https://odihpn.org/), and partner closely with practice groups such as Humanitarian Designers (https://www.humanitariandesigners.org/)
  58. See Humanitech success stories piloting these approaches: https://www.humanitech.org.au/
  59. ATTACHMENT 3 – Project Activities Structure and Supporting Work-Streams (SWSs) https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#graphic
  60. Our advisory group includes key decision-makers, operational leaders, and thought-leaders from the RCRC movement, ICRC, humanitarian and IT policy, humanitarian innovation, academia, and the tech industry.
  61. Social Requirements is a term we use to refer to our humanitarian technical requirements for quality humanitarian output/outcomes for incorporating and assessing into digital products design and development. See HAT guide, Chapter 4 - Identifying and Incorporating the Social Requirements, Ref #22.
  62. See HAT guide, Chapter 7 - Evaluating If It’s Good? Ref#22
  63. Coletti, G., Mays, R., & Widera, A. (2017). Bringing Technology and Humanitarian Values Together: A Framework to Design and Assess Humanitarian Information Systems. Proceedings from the 2017 4th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management (ICT-DM), Muenster: IEEE.  https://depts.washington.edu/cossar/wp-content/uploads/Coletti-G-Mays-R-Widera-A-Bringing-Technology-and-Humanitarian-Values-Together-A-Framework-to-Design-and-Assess-Humanitarian-Information-Systems-ICT-DM%E2%80%9820171.pdf
    Also see HAT guide, Chapter 5 – Partnering with Tech, Ref#22
  64. See HAT guide, Chapter 2 – Conducting Community-Led Assessment, Ref#22
  65. See HAT guide, Chapter 6 – Guiding the Development Cycle, Ref#22
  66. See HAT guide, Chapter 7 - Evaluating If It’s Good? Ref#22
  67. See HAT guide, Chapter 3 – Assessing for the Tech Opportunity, Ref#22
  68. ATTACHMENT 4 - Project Budget Table. https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#budget
  69. See References 1-6, 11, 13, 16, 21, 46-49.
  70. https://www.preparecenter.org/content/about-gdpc
  71. https://www.redcross.org/get-help/how-to-prepare-for-emergencies/mobile-apps.html
  72. To access previous publications on the humanitarian systems research conducted over the past decade with the GDPC, see UW/HCDE/COSSAR’s listing at https://depts.washington.edu/cossar/research/publications/
  73. ATTACHMENT 8 – Partnering Letter – Better Humanitarian Design. https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#support-letters;  See also Section 13 for more information on our long-standing research partnership with Better Humanitarian Design (BHD).
  74. ATTACHMENT 9 – Partnering Letter – International Center for Humanitarian Affairs. https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#support-letters;  See also https://www.icha.net/
  75. ATTACHMENT 10 – Partnering Letter – Humanitech Lab. https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#support-letters;  See also https://www.humanitech.org.au/lab/
  76. Humanity First’s successfully piloted toolkit is referenced throughout the HAT guide to help integrate components of human-centred design, systems thinking, and participatory community development along with considerations of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement into the design and development process. https://www.humanitech.org.au/humanity-first/
  77. ATTACHMENT 7 – Partnering and Letter of Reference – 3 Sided Cube. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PilIraXzNVL2Z_X3ZuZRGs8DKlYk8dDl/view?usp=drive_link;  Also see  https://3sidedcube.com/; and Section 13 for more information on our long-standing implementing partnership with 3 Sided Cube.
  78. ATTACHMENT 11 – Partnering Letter – UW/HCDE/COSSAR. https://preparecenter.org/usaid-div/#support-letters;  Hosted at the University of Washington’s Department of Human-Centered Design and Engineering (UW/HCDE) https://depts.washington.edu/cossar/; See also Section 13 for more information on our long-standing research partnership with COSSAR.
  79. ATTACHMENT 5 – Letter of Reference #1 – Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mzb6sqWyypazmAhWJVL2t-Z2Ew6EE63r/view?usp=drive_link
  80. ATTACHMENT 6 – Letter of Reference #2 – CLEAR Global. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zgop3uQ6HIGm80eW0rLFNWCFTrsCwGMY/view?usp=drive_link
  81. ATTACHMENT 7 – Letter of Reference #3 – 3 Sided Cube. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PilIraXzNVL2Z_X3ZuZRGs8DKlYk8dDl/view?usp=drive_link
Scroll to Top