Attachment_4_FA_3_SAMPLE_TO_SOW_3.docx

Attachment 4: FA 3 Sample TO SOW Solicitation 140D0422R0016

Functional Area (FA) 3: Diplomacy, Media, and Cultural Affairs Programs Task Order (TO) SAMPLE Statement of Work (SOW) Evaluation of the Washington Leadership Fellowship for Young World Leaders

Under Functional Area 3: Diplomacy, Media and Cultural Affairs Programs of BP/F’s Performance Management and Evaluation Services IDIQ, the Evaluation Division in the Office of Policy and Evaluation in the Bureau of Z (BUREAU Z), in the U.S. Department of State (DOS), seeks evaluation services for an independent evaluation of BUREAU Z’s Washington Leadership Fellowship for Young World Leaders.

1. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE EFFORT

About the Young World Leaders Initiative: The Young World Leaders Initiative (YWLI) is a signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders. YWLI was launched in 2010 to support Young World Leaders as they spur growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across Sub-Saharan Africa. YWLI has three main components: the Washington Leadership Fellowship, the YWLI Network, and the YWLI Regional Leadership Centers.

1) The Washington Leadership Fellowship includes Academic and Leadership Institutes at a U.S. university or college; a networking Summit; competitively selected U.S.‐based professional development experiences; and local-based support in 15 Mediterranean nations following the conclusion of the Institutes. The U.S.-based components of the Fellowship – Academic and Leadership Institutes, Summit, professional development experiences, and Reciprocal Exchange component- are managed by the Study of the U.S. Branch in BUREAU Z. Fellowship alumni activities and support on the continent are offered by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of Alumni Affairs in BUREAU Z, and U.S. embassies around the Mediterranean.

2) The YWLI Network is a growing community of more than 500,000 young leaders around the Mediterranean. YWLI Network members have access to free educational materials, virtual events, and face-to-face interactions to advance their skills in leadership, business and entrepreneurship, civic leadership, and public management. The YWLI Network is managed by the Bureau Z at the DoS.

3) YWLI Regional Leadership Centers (RLCs) build on existing institutional capacity around the Mediterranean to provide high-quality training, mentoring, and networking support to a greater number of young leaders beyond the Washington Leadership Fellows. RLCs provide on-the-continent programming in the core themes of the Fellowship – business, civic leadership, and public management. The four primary RLCs offering training throughout the year are located in Spain, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. Satellite campuses in Greece and Egypt offer programming at select times. The RLCs are managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

This evaluation will focus on the Washington Leadership Fellowship for Young World Leaders only – though the offeror’s evaluation team should still consider collecting data from stakeholders in the other YWLI components.

About the Washington Leadership Fellowship for Young World Leaders:The Washington Leadership Fellowship for Young World Leaders, begun in 2014, is the flagship program of the Young World Leaders Initiative (YWLI) that empowers young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. The Fellows, who are between the ages of 25 and 35, have established records of accomplishment in promoting innovation and positive impact in their organizations, institutions, communities, and countries.

3,000 Fellows have participated to date, and in 2018, the Fellowship will provide 700 additional Fellows with the opportunity to hone their skills at a U.S. college or university. From 2014 to 2017, Fellows represented a diverse group of leaders from all 49 countries around the Mediterranean. Five percent of Fellows identified as having a disability, and 50 percent of Fellows were women.

U.S.-based Activities

· Academic and Leadership Institutes: Each Washington LeadershipFellow takes part in a six-week Academic and Leadership Institute at a U.S. college or university in one of three tracks: Business and Entrepreneurship, Civic Leadership, or Public Management.

· Washington Leadership Fellowship Summit: Following the academic component of the Fellowship, the Fellows visit Washington, D.C., for a three-day Summit featuring networking and panel discussions with U.S. leaders from the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

· Professional Development Experience: One hundred selected Fellows remain in the United States to participate in a six-week Professional Development Experience with U.S. non-governmental organizations, private companies, and governmental agencies that relate to their professional interests and goals.

Africa-based Activities Upon returning to their home countries, Fellows continue to build the skills they have developed during their time in the United States through support from U.S. embassies, four Regional Leadership Centers, the YWLI Network, and customized programming from USAID, DOS, and affiliated partners. Through these experiences, select Washington Leadership Fellows have access to ongoing professional development opportunities, mentoring, networking and training, and support for their ideas, businesses, and organizations. Fellows may also apply for their American partners to travel around the Mediterranean to continue project-based collaboration through the Reciprocal Exchange Component.

Washington Leadership Fellowship Reciprocal Exchange The Reciprocal Exchange Component provides funds for American professionals to travel to countries around the Mediterranean to build upon strategic partnerships and professional connections developed during the Washington Leadership Fellowship in the United States. American professionals may include those met during the Washington Leadership Fellowship through site visits, networking, the Summit, Professional Development Experiences, or other activities. Through these projects, Americans and Young World Leaders form lasting partnerships, expand markets and networks, and increase mutual understanding between the United States and countries around the Mediterranean.

2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the degree to which the U.S.-based components of the Washington Leadership Fellowship are meeting the program’s stated goals, as well as the program’s impact on advancing DOS strategic policy priorities. More specifically, the evaluation will offer an analysis of how Washington Leadership Fellowship Alumni operationalize skills and knowledge learned during their U.S. exchange experience to advance their academic and career goals, create positive impact in their communities, and build lasting and productive relationships between people of the Unied States and other countries.

The findings will provide critical information to assist DOS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the U.S. Congress, and others in formulating the best evidence-based decisions regarding future program planning and design, budget, and policy issues.

This evaluation will cover Alumni from the 2014 through the 2018 cohorts, totaling 3,700 Alumni. This timeframe covers the first five-year grant period of the Washington Leadership Fellowship, which was implemented by IREX.

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The evaluation should answer the following overarching questions:

· Impact on Fellowship Alumni

1. What individual-level impact has the Washington Leadership Fellowship U.S. exchange had on its Alumni?

a. How has participation in the U.S. exchange contributed to Alumni:

i. Professional development

ii. Business success

b. How have Alumni leadership skills and/or opportunities (within their community, schools, and/or places of employment) changed as a result of participating in the U.S. exchange portion of the Fellowship?

c. How has participation in the Reciprocal Exchange contributed to Alumni:

i. Professional development

ii. Business success

· Impact on Communities

2. In what ways has participation in the U.S. exchange portion of the Fellowship allowed Fellows to benefit their home communities?

3. In what ways has participation in the Reciprocal Exchange component of the Fellowship allowed Fellows to benefit their home communities?

4. In what ways does the Washington Leadership Fellowship benefit local American communities?

· Supporting Public Diplomacy Goals

5. To what extent has the U.S. exchange portion of the Fellowship built lasting and productive relationships, both personal and institutional, between the Unied States and other countries?

a. In what ways has the Washington Leadership Fellowship supported networking/ engagement with the wider Exchange Alumni Network?

b. In what ways has the Washington Leadership Fellowship supported networking/engagement with other Washington Leadership Fellows around the Mediterranean?

c. In what ways do Fellowship Alumni continue to engage with people they met on their exchange program once they return home?

d. In what ways do Fellowship Alumni continue to engage and build a positive relationship with the U.S. government?

· Supporting Foreign Policy Goals

6. How does the Fellowship’s U.S. exchange support the following foreign policy goals:

a. Promoting U.S. competitiveness;

b. Cultivating secure and resilient communities;

c. Strengthening democratic institutions and governance;

d. Spurring economic growth and prosperity;

e. Fostering peace and security around the Mediterranean.

· Process Improvement

7. How can BUREAU Z shape the next phase of U.S.-based Washington Leadership Fellowship programming?

a. What aspects of the U.S. exchange did alumni find most and least useful/beneficial?

b. Which aspects of the U.S. exchange would they change?

c. Are there any program components that stakeholders[footnoteRef:2] (alumni, in particular) think the Fellowship should add to the U.S. programming? [2: Stakeholders such as IREX, USAID, Regional Leadership Centers, and relevant U.S. Embassy personnel]

4. EVALUATION DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

The Evaluation Division places a high value on evaluation design and products that:

1. Integrate rigorous analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data;

2. Engage with a wide variety of stakeholders;

3. Help refine existing program models and components; and

4. Produce examples of program impact.

Below are suggested methodologies for data collection that may be appropriate for this evaluation. These suggestions should not be considered a final or complete list. It is expected that the contractor’s proposal and eventual final evaluation plan will carefully consider the appropriateness of all potential methodologies against their ability to both answer the evaluation questions and meet the requirements outlined within this SOW.

Potential data collection methodologies:

· Document and records review

· Surveys (web based or in-person)

· In-depth, semi-structured and structured interviews (remote and/or in-person)

· Focus groups (remote and/or in-person)

Key stakeholders that may be considered relevant during data collection include the following:

· Washington Leadership Fellowship Alumni

· U.S. Reciprocal Exchange Alumni

· IREX

· Host Universities

· Academic and Leadership Institute Staff

· Professional Development Experience Host Organizations

· U.S. Community Members (Host Families, Site Visit Organizations, Community Service Organizations, etc.)

Data collection should include both domestic and overseas fieldwork. The contractor should plan to travel in-person for all domestic fieldwork, while all overseas fieldwork should be conducted with the assistance of local independent contractors/sub-contractors (see Sections 7.7 and 7.8 below for additional details).

In developing the final evaluation plan, the Evaluation Division will work closely with the contractor to determine the best methodologies and approaches required to meet the needs of this evaluation.

5. EVALUATION TEAM

The offeror should propose a team with a combination of qualifications as outlined in this SOW to provide the best possible product. Requested skills of key and non-key personnel are outlined below.

5.1 Key Personnel

Key personnel will include:

· Evaluation Team Leader (1) This person can be senior- or mid-level. It is desired the team leader have served as a team leader in the past (preferably with a US Government agency and ideally with cultural exchange programs), be comfortable with collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, and preferably has research design expertise.

· Evaluation Team (multiple)

· The evaluation team will be expected to be available for the entire period of performance. The Evaluation Division must approve any key personnel change in writing. The team may also consist of mid-level evaluation consultant(s). Combined, it is desired these individuals have experience working with international exchange program evaluations, ability to analyze quantitative data, and strong qualitative (with a preference for experience with virtual data collection) analytical capabilities.

The evaluation team will be expected to be available for the entire period of performance. The Evaluation Division must approve any key personnel change in writing.

5.2 Non-Key Personnel

· The team may also wish to include Junior-level Research Assistants to properly support the key personnel. These Research Assistants should consist of individuals with experience working with mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative), large data sets, have strong data visualization know-how, and demonstrate strong analytical skills.

· It is expected that, for this evaluation, some level of support staff will be required. It is expected that either a Program Manager or Administrative Support person support this evaluation. This person will assist in copy editing the report, designing and developing infographics, and support in the overall management of the evaluation. Alternatively, if these roles can be filled by the evaluation personnel above for added cost savings, the BUREAU Z Bureau would find that acceptable (and preferable).

5.3 Use of Locals/Sub-Contractors

If utilized, the contractor should include documentation of institutional capacity and staff experience for the potential sub-contractors and local consultants listed.

The BUREAU Z Evaluation Division strongly encourages the use of local consultants or local sub-contractors, as they can offer budgetary advantages during the implementation of the evaluation. In-country partners enable the evaluation team to locate past participants and can facilitate the interaction between the evaluation team and study participants. To the extent possible, the offeror’s proposal should include information pertaining to potential sub-contractors in the illustrative countries listed in Section 7.8.

5.4 BUREAU Z Evaluation Division Staff Travel

BUREAU Z Evaluation staff members may travel with the team to assist with the evaluation and facilitate interactions with representatives of the USG, implementing organizations, and other key personnel. The cost of this individual will be borne by BUREAU Z.

6. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The contractor will be expected to present a delivery timeline in their technical proposal based on the tasks and deliverables outlined in Section 7 below. While the period of performance for this evaluation is estimated to be 18 months from the date the TO is signed, the contractor should propose the timeline to which they feel they can best commit.

Estimated period of performance: 18 Months.

That said, the contractor must be responsive to BUREAU Z needs, and remain flexible with regard to possible delays or prolong timing. All work must start within two weeks of TO award.

7. WORK REQUIREMENTS – TASKS & DELIVERABLES

Below is a detailed summary of all tasks and deliverables required under this contract:

Description

Provide status meeting notes that summarize discussions, decisions and result in actionable items. Upon award, the Evaluation Division and the contractor shall communicate with the Evaluation Division on a regular basis (i.e. weekly, bi-weekly, monthly as deemed necessary).

Monthly Reports: This regular communication also includes Monthly Progress Reports – which are to include status of on-going and completed tasks, brief summaries of significant meetings or briefings held during the month reported on, next steps to be undertaken by the contractor, and any pending actions to be taken by the Evaluation Division. Monthly reports should also highlight any delays or expected delays based on the timeline (i.e. when a benchmark or deliverable was not met) as well as remedies or significant challenges which impede the timeline. The monthly report is expected to only be1-2 pages.

Meet with BUREAU Z to discuss the mechanics of the evaluation before data collection begins. The Evaluation Division will provide direction in terms of meeting with other offices or outside agencies and grantees.

Upon award, the contractor will begin preliminary research and review of the YWLI and the Evaluation Division website to review previously evaluated work to gain a better understanding of the program, and begin developing the evaluation plan. The BUREAU Z Evaluation Division will also assist the contractor with the identification and collection of program documents.

The contractor will work in close collaboration with the BUREAU Z Evaluation Division to develop a final evaluation plan that includes the following elements:

1. Data collection methods

2. Quality Assurance Plan (which should consist of: participant contact information management plan, plan for data collection instruments, translation plan, survey administration plan, and a quantitative and qualitative analysis plan)

3. Planned analysis techniques

4. Timeline

NOTE: The Evaluation Division must approve any changes in the evaluation plan.

Development: The contractor will draft and submit data collection instruments (e.g. survey questionnaires) to the Evaluation Division for approval. The contractor will revise all draft data collection instruments (e.g. survey questionnaires) in collaboration with the Evaluation Division. All instruments must be approved by the Evaluation Division prior to finalization and use. In some cases, the Program Office and U.S. Embassy may want to review and approve data collection strategies and/or instruments.

NOTE: Due to the U.S. audience as a part of this evaluation’s data collection efforts, some data collection instruments will require OMB approval as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). After the instruments have been developed, the Evaluation Division will work to submit them through the approval process (see Section 9.3 & 10 for more details regarding the requirements, and regarding the contractor’s role during this process). It is anticipated that there will be at least a six (6) month turnaround. The contractor should remain flexible with the timeline, and the Evaluation Division will keep the contractor informed on the progress/status as well as when requirements related to this task will be needed.

Data Map: The contractor will be required to submit a data map of the data collection questions (items on survey questionnaire) to the research questions.

Scripts: In addition, the contractor will draft and submit the initial introductory contact/cover letters/e-mails/scripts as well as any follow-up or reminder correspondence language related to all data collection instruments, as well as any contact or script language related to the location verification of alumni to the Evaluation Division for revision and approval.

Pre Test: The contractor will conduct a pre-test(s) of data collection instrument(s). Any subsequent revisions must be reviewed and approved by the Evaluation Division.

Administration: In regard to quantitative data collection (survey administration), the contractor will provide the Evaluation Division with a survey administration plan with details on strategies to regularly monitor survey response rates and methods to increase response rates. Methods to reach survey respondents may include but are not limited to reminder e-mails, domain adjustments, phone calls, etc. Survey response rates of 35% or less are deemed inadequate and contractors will be required to demonstrate attempts to maximize response rates.

Second, the contractor will be required to perform diagnostics to ensure adequate survey coverage of key groups is represented in the study population (e.g. gender, program year, program language, and host country). The contractor will work closely with the Evaluation Division to determine key groups and the Evaluation Division will sign off (approve) on the threshold of representation of the agreed to key groups.

Reporting: Upon completion of the use of each data collection instrument (survey questionnaire, for example), or completion of the evaluation project, the contractor must report on the use of survey instruments. The contractor will be required to report the following information:

· The actual number surveys distributed and/or the actual number of people interviewed or participating in focus groups (respondents).

· The actual number of surveys/interview requests returned/undeliverable/declined, etc.

· The percentage of total number of responses that were collected electronically (e.g. via email or web-based instruments).

· The total average time (in minutes) it took all respondents to complete the survey or instrument.

All raw data from each data collection instrument must be submitted to the Evaluation Division upon completion of the project.

Upon TO award, the Evaluation Division will provide a list of program Alumni, as is, to the contractor. This list will consist of information the Evaluation Division is able to collect from within DOS, namely from the BUREAU Z Alumni Archive only. This will most likely not represent the most up-to-date information for all alumni.

The contractor will be fully responsible for finding, securing updated/current TO information for alumni involved in this study, and verifying to the greatest extent possible beyond what is initially provided. This includes, but is not limited to, contacting implementing organizations for their alumni records for the period covered by the SOW and merging with the DOS contacts provided by the Evaluation Division. Additionally, the firm will need to determine where there is any duplicate information due to some alumni having been on the program more than once.

Methods to reach alumni may include but are not limited to e-mails, phone calls, scanning of social media sites, address directory searches, etc. The contractor should provide a short description of the evaluation process to share with program alumni, host organizations, and implementing partners prior to contacting the alumni.

All Alumni contact information must be provided as a deliverable to the Evaluation Division at the completion of the evaluation. This should include an Alumni contact inventory which outlines the number of program participants / alumni with contact information and type (e-mail, phone etc.) as well as the number of alumni without contact information. Differences in contact information by group (e.g. Demographics: fiscal/program year, gender, thematic focus, country, etc.) should also be noted in the inventory.

Fieldwork in the U.S. should include site visits to the implementing partner, Institutes, partner organizations in local communities surrounding Institutes, Professional Development Experience Host Organizations, and Reciprocal Exchange Awardees’ workplaces. Fieldwork in the U.S. should include site visits to a maximum of four (4) regions plus the local District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DMV) area, with no more than a 2-person team at each site (totaling five (5)) domestic site visits). Trips will be determined based on concentration of alumni and what is most logistically feasible.

For the purposes of the Technical and Price Proposals ONLY, the contractor should utilize the following list of illustrative cities/states:

Domestic Regions with Illustrative Cities/States (These cities and states are a representative sample of Host University locations and are based on total numbers of alumni from the 2017-18 period)

Georgia State University

NOTE: This does not represent the final list of cities/states for this project.

These locations are all subject to change, contingent on other events, a concentration of Alumni that reside in or around the area, or DOS interests that require selection of a new region. The Evaluation Division can amend the selection of fieldwork sites, at any point during the evaluation, and the Offeror should remain flexible at all times.

Once study locations are finalized, the contractor will take full responsibility for fieldwork implementation (i.e. preparation for fieldwork and data collection logistics) as deemed appropriate by the Evaluation Division.

See Section 9.4 for translation requirement related to any instruments used for non-U.S. stakeholders.

International fieldwork should include one trip to each of four (4) regions around the Mediterranean. Trips can be to a single or multi-country depending on concentrations of Alumni and the feasibility of travel between countries.

For the purposes of the Evaluation Design and Plan in the Technical and Price Proposals ONLY, the contractor should utilize the following list of illustrative cities/countries:

Illustrative Foreign Cities and Countries ((These cities are a representative sample of countries that are home to the larger cohorts of Mandela Washington Fellow alumni). For price proposal purposes, please utilize those cities marked with an *).

Maghreb:

Levant:

Balkan:

Southern Europe:

NOTE: This does not necessarily represent the final list of countries for this project.

The Contractor should also plan to utilize remote data collection methods as a means of engaging with Fellows from countries where the contractor is unable to travel in-person.

All countries are subject to change, contingent on security conditions, other events, or DOS interests that require selection of a different country. The Evaluation Division can amend the selection of fieldwork countries, at any point during the evaluation, and the Offeror should remain flexible at all times.

Once study countries are finalized, the Evaluation Division will work with Posts in selected countries, to facilitate field work initiation. The contractor will take full responsibility for fieldwork implementation (i.e. preparation for fieldwork and data collection logistics) as deemed appropriate by the Evaluation Division, and at the discretion and preferences of the U.S. embassies.

Six-day workweeks for this portion of the evaluation will be authorized.

NOTE: It is the expectation that not all key informants outside of the U.S. who may have interacted with the alumni during the program will speak English well enough to complete a survey or participate in an interview, etc. Therefore, the contractor should expect to have data collection instruments translated into any languages (only as necessary) referenced in Section 2 and submitted to the Evaluation Division.

Prior to drafting the Evaluation Report, the contractor will be required to first submit a detailed draft report outline for approval by the Evaluation Division.

As part of the report review process, the contractor should expect to produce multiple drafts of the Evaluation Report, and adequate time shall be incorporated into the project schedule. Below is an outline of the expected review/approval process and how long the contractor can expect that turnaround time on feedback will take:

1. Evaluation Division review (one week)

2. Washington Leadership Fellowship Program Office and BUREAU Z/P manager review (two weeks)

3. BUREAU Z senior management (DAS level) final approval (two weeks)

The contractor must remain flexible should more or less time be required to gain the appropriate approvals.

After approval of the draft version of the Evaluation Report, the contractor will be expected to present a briefing (most likely format will be 45-60 minutes of presentation; 30-45 minutes of questions) of the report findings to key stakeholders identified by the Evaluation Division. Stakeholders may include members of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, Program Offices in BUREAU Z, staff from other Offices in DOS, BUREAU Z senior leadership, or staff from implementing organizations.

NOTE: Prior to the briefing, the contractor will be required to submit the PowerPoint presentation and any associated materials to the Evaluation Division for review and approval. Briefing materials should be a stand-alone presentation (i.e. with appropriate slide notes/script) which can be used by the Evaluation Division after the completion of the Evaluation.

The Final Evaluation Report should include a review of the evaluation and the Washington Leadership Fellowship, an Executive Summary that includes key findings, and a detailed analysis of the data collected, as well as any recommendations and/or lessons learned for the program. As per DOS evaluation guidelines, the final report should be between 25-35 pages (not including appendices). Detailed information on analysis, data, or research instruments can be placed in appendices. DOS officials are usually not conversant with academic jargon and technical expressions; therefore, if they are used, they should be explained in the text. The report should be organized around evaluation questions. For each major evaluation question, the report should have a separate section presenting findings and conclusions.

Language in the Final Report should be clear and easily understandable by a lay audience. The Evaluation Report should follow the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (www.gpo.gov).

Electronic copies in Microsoft Word and PDF of these documents will be submitted in an e-mail to the Evaluation Division prior to the conclusion of the contract. A single file must include the executive summary and the full report, with any relevant appendices (plus a cover sheet) in a separate file. Additionally, the contractor will be expected to deliver ten (10) colored, bound hardcopies.

Upon completion of an approved final Evaluation Report the contractor will be expected to develop an evaluation summary. The evaluation summary should be brief, approximately two to four pages. The summary should include the following:

· Title of the evaluation

· Date the report was submitted

· Purpose of the evaluation and questions addressed

· Methodology

· Key Findings

· Recommendations/Lessons learned

Contractor should review the Global Women’s Entrepreneurship Program and Pothman evaluations on the Evaluation Division website: https://Bureau Z.state.gov/impact/evaluation-Bureau Z/evaluation-initiative/completed-evaluations

Electronic copies in Microsoft Word and PDF of the approved final evaluation summary will be submitted by e-mail to the Evaluation Division prior to the conclusion of the contract.

After the Final Evaluation Report has been submitted and approved, the contractor will be expected to meet with the Evaluation Division, and possibly other BUREAU Z stakeholders (e.g., the Program Office) to determine which specific data points from the Final Report will be shared with which audiences and for what purpose. These data sets will be included in a brief infographic style report, etc.

The data points used in this infographic will be used solely at the discretion of BUREAU Z. The infographic report provided by the contractor should reflect these discussions, and should be visually appealing and accessible by a variety of different audiences. This Report should utilize minimal text and conveying the data through infographics.

Additional design guidance will be provided as necessary.

Electronic copies of the approved final infographic will be submitted by e-mail to the Evaluation Division prior to the conclusion of the TO in multiple file types (i.e. PDF, Illustrator). The file delivered must consist of a high-quality infographic report in PDF format with high-resolution images that are 300 dpi (dot per inch). Additionally, the contractor will be expected to deliver fifty (50) glossy, full color hard copies.

8. EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE

8.1 In accordance with performance-based results, the contractor will be held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results.

8.2 The contractor shall be responsive to DOS needs throughout the project and demonstrate ability to provide and present information according to DOS’s requirements.

9. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

9.1 Evaluation Division Support Staff: An evaluation manager will be named prior to the start of the evaluation.

9.2 Security: This project does not entail working with classified information. Note that all information and data in this project is sensitive (SBU), and should not be shared publicly without written consent of the Evaluation Division.

9.3 Compliance with Applicable Requirements: All deliverables associated with this TO must conform to applicable standards, requirements, and restrictions governing official U.S. Government public websites, as well as data collection instruments including but not limited to:

· Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

· Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

· Privacy Act of 1974, as amended

Paperwork Reduction Act: Upon determination by the Evaluation Division, as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the survey approval process for U.S. data collection will require additional review, edit and final consent by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) via the Information Collection process. The process includes two separate public comment periods via the Federal Register (60 days and 30 days, respectively), and the final OMB review period (which may take an additional 90 days). In all, obtaining clearance of the survey(s) from OMB may take at least 6 months.

More information on the PRA approval process can be found here: https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/guidance/pra-overview.html

9.4 Language for Data Collection: The Contractor and its sub-contractor(s) will be responsible for conducting overseas research in the relevant languages. The contractor should not assume that information collection from all key overseas informants can be conducted in English. Final languages for data collection instruments and fieldwork will be determined in consultation with the Evaluation Division. For field research, the Contractor will arrange and pay for interpreters and translation during field research as needed (i.e. field interviews, focus groups, fieldwork logistics, etc.).

All interpretation and translation must be performed by capable/professional individuals. The offeror should outline the steps they will take to ensure high quality professional work in terms of language translation and interpreting. Upon award the Contractor will be required to submit a quality control plan for the work on translation.

All data collection instruments will be submitted in English and the languages selected for the evaluation. Final reports and other reports outlined in the SOW will be submitted to the Evaluation Division in English.

9.5 Place of Performance: With the exception of domestic and international fieldwork, the project activity is anticipated to take place at the contractor’s place of work (including remote overseas data collection). Domestic fieldwork will occur at the sites selected.

9.6 Raw Data: The offeror should plan to make all raw data available for the BUREAU Z Evaluation Division (but does not have to be formatted in a particular way – for instance, copies of notes will be fine as opposed to typing them out if the contracting firm is not analyzing data in this way).

10. LOGISTICAL SUPPORT

The Evaluation Division will:

· Prepare the other stakeholders in advance of their turn to review and/or provide feedback at various stages of the evaluation in order to help minimize delays in turn-around time.

· Provide all available BUREAU Z related materials, documents available.

· Be responsible for managing the OMB PRA process and submission of the information collection, submitting all paperwork, and participate in discussions with OMB regarding any questions, comments they have towards the evaluation. The Evaluation Division will inform the contractor as to the specific documentation, language they will need to provide to incorporate into the paperwork. If deemed necessary by the Evaluation Division, the contractor may be requested to also participate in these meetings with OMB to go over the data collection instruments, methodology, etc.

· Will work with Posts in selected fieldwork countries, to facilitate the initiation of fieldwork. The contractor will take full responsibility for fieldwork implementation (i.e. preparation for fieldwork and data collection logistics) as deemed appropriate by the Evaluation Division, and at the discretion and preferences of the Posts.

· Be the primary points of contact (through the COR and Project Manager) for this evaluation. Any contact with any BUREAU Z or other DOS Offices, (domestically or overseas), grantees or local organizations, or other stakeholders shall take place only as authorized or requested (and subsequently arranged) by the Evaluation Division.

Additionally, the Evaluation Division will assist the contractor with the collection of contact information by initially requesting available contact information from appropriate BUREAU Z offices and U.S. embassies. However, the burden of effort, particularly with regard to obtaining other Alumni contact information from implementing partners and other external sources is the responsibility of the contractor.

11. BUDGET

This TO will be firm-fixed price.

11.1 Responsibility for All Costs: The contractor shall assume responsibility for all costs associated with the project as detailed in the SOW.

11.2 Travel: Exact dates of overseas travel are often difficult to predict. Accordingly, DOS is not able to guarantee twenty-one days (21 days) advance notice and/or lowest air fares. All travel shall be in accordance with federal travel regulations, including “Preference for U.S.-Flag Air Carriers” (January 1997), and DOS will pay for the equivalent of economy class tickets only.

11.3 Contractor and Exchange Rates: No TO adjustments will be made for changes in contractor rates and/or exchange rates during the course of the TO.