Responses_to_Vendor_Questions_-_95332418Q0109_OGEAP.pdf

95332418Q0109 Benin II OGEAP Questions & Answers 1

95332418Q0109

Benin II OGEAP

Questions and Answers

1. Is MCC open to innovative designs that would attempt one or more of the following:

a. Elicitation of the minimum subsidy required for off-grid investment

b. Designs that would similarly allow estimation of a counterfactual based on a competition for grant resources, where the controls would be for high-scoring, non-retained proposals

(perhaps based on relative costs or other criteria)

A. Yes, MCC is open to such designs. For (b), please note that access to information on unsuccessful proposals may be difficult to obtain.

2. In section C.3 of the RFQ, under “Grant Outcomes”, MCC asks whether beneficiaries received

“a basic level of electricity”. Could MCC define what is meant by ‘basic level’?

A. While this term is not explicitly defined in the Benin II Compact M&E, it can be understood as tier 1 in the SE4ALL multi-tier framework. Offerors may propose alternate definitions for this term.

3. In section C.3 of the RFQ, under “Grant Outcomes”, MCC asks about the relative cost effectiveness of this project compared with others in Benin. Will the data on other projects be provided by MCC or will the consultant be expected to collect this data?

A. The consultant would be responsible for collecting that data. MCC and MCA-Benin II would support.

4. In section C.3 of the RFQ, under “Guidance and Methodology”, MCC states that additional data collection to estimate the ERR is required for both Window One and Four. Is this reflective of the expected scale of investment? Would MCC be open to additional data collection for

Windows Two and Three which may be more interesting and tractable from an evaluation perspective?

A. Additional quantitative data collection for Window One and Four is expected, because the quantitative data collection effort covering multiple grants for evaluation and estimating their

ERR will not likely cover these two windows.

MCC is open to additional data collection on Windows and Three. These will be assessed against the Evaluation Factors described in Section M.

5. Will the Consultant have full access to all grants submitted under the OCEF Activity? If there are limitations to what can be shared with an external evaluator, is MCC currently in a position to communicate what types of information may be withheld?

A. The Consultant will have access to the grant award documents under the OCEF Activity.

MCC does not have any limitations to share with Offerors.

95332418Q0109 Benin II OGEAP Questions & Answers 2

6. On Page 45, under Program Manager qualifications, the RFP states “At least eight years’ experience designing and carrying out evaluations; at least three of the evaluations should have assessed programs in the electricity sector (especially rural electrification and energy efficiency), policy reform, or private sector development and at least two should have been of a grant facility or similar implementation mechanism.” Would MCC be amenable to removing the requirement for grant facility experience from the Program Manager requirements, so long as one or more members of the evaluation team demonstrate experience equal to or greater than the requirement?

A. Yes. Offerors may propose a Program Manager without experience designing and carrying out at least two evaluations of a grant facility or similar implementation mechanism, as long as one or more members of the evaluation team meet or exceed this requirement.

7. MCC has requested that the program manager demonstrate several skills and experiences that may be hard to find in a single person. Would MCC allow offerors to meet the skill requirements for program manager, in part, through other members of the team?

A. An Offeror may propose to satisfy the key personnel requirements through more than one evaluation team member. However, each of those individuals would need to be proposed as key personnel.

8. After reviewing the grant application eligibility requirements in the OCEF Guide pour la soumission des projets à l’intention des Demandeurs, it does not appear that local utilities are excluded from participating. Could MCC confirm that local utilities are eligible to receive grants, and comment on the desirability or feasibility of utility participation?

A. Public utilities are not eligible for grants under OCEF. Private sector or community-operated minigrids (if there is a sustainable business model) are eligible.

9. For cost sharing, can the grantee provide “payment in kind” or “sweat equity” or does this need to be cash or equipment?

A. Only 15% of the cost sharing can be in-kind. The rest must be cash.

10. Does the MCC consider hybrid microgrids (diesel and solar, or diesel, solar and storage) to be

“clean?” If not, are they still eligible for consideration? Would a grant to improve the performance of diesel generation, since it would reduce emissions and lower costs?

A. MCC does not have a position on whether hybrid microgrids are “clean”. Hybrid microgrids are eligible for consideration.

11. Has MCC determined a target distribution of grants by Window, or are all grants considered regardless of the window they fall into? Is there a target distribution of size of grants?

A. MCC does not have a formal target distribution of grants per Window. Informally, we may distribute around 12 million USD for Windows 1, 3, and 4, and 20 million for Window 2, but

95332418Q0109 Benin II OGEAP Questions & Answers 3 this is not fixed and will depend on quality of applications received. All grants are considered regardless of the window with the limitations described in Section C.1. of the RFQ.

12. In reference to information provided on page 17, under Task 2, “it is likely that only the CBA models for windows 2 and 3 will be available…” could MCC please clarify if there is a CBA at the grant facility program level, and rationale for conducting CBA per Window?

A. MCC’s ex-ante CBA will be performed at the individual grant level. Since the grants under windows 2 and 3 are likely to have similar project logics, it may be possible to perform the ex-ante CBA using window 2 and 3 CBA templates that MCC has pre-prepared. The

Evaluator will have access to these templates. There will be no ex-ante window or facility-level MCC CBA, although note that calculating the ERR at the window and facility level will be possible by aggregating the net benefits from the individual grant CBAs. To the extent that the independent evaluation finds grant facility-level impacts (e.g. addressing discovery and/or coordination market failures) incremental to the grant-level impacts, the Evaluator can incorporate these into the Evaluation-Based CBA.

13. Could MCC comment on the feasibility of acquiring baseline data for the Enabling Environment

Activity, since p.9 states that the adoption of National Framework is expected in “Summer 2018” and project commencement is estimated for September 2018?

A. It is not clear what baseline data the Offeror is referring to. MCC notes that not all evaluations require baseline information.

14. Is it correct that MCC is currently only procuring M&E services for the off grid component of the Compact?

A. As per Section C.2., this RFQ is to Provide Independent Evaluation Services in support of the

Off-Grid Electricity Access Project (OGEAP).

15. The contracting authority has made estimations for the data-collection services only and requests bidders to review this amount. Is there also a maximum budget amount for all services related to this RFP (data-collection + management / other work related to the services)?

A. MCC does not communicate its budget for the requirement, however, MCC does estimate a total labor effort of approximately 9,168 hours.

16. Is there a preferred / required team set-up? As we understand that key reports need to be made available in En + French: would it be acceptable for the Team Leader to be fluent in English and conversational in French (and the contractor arranges translation of these reports)?

A. MCC does not have a preferred team composition. Per Section H.17.2., Professional proficiency or above in English and French is required of the Program Manager.