95332718Q0118_Amendment_0001.pdf

5. PROJECT NO. (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 7

See Block 16C

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700 Washington DC 20005 Attn: Regina Maxwell, 202-521-7272, maxwellre@mcc.gov

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700 Washington DC 20005

To all Offerors/Bidders 95332418Q0118

07-06-2018X

X X

The purpose of this amendment to 95332418Q0118 is to:

a) Provide MCC’s response to the Q&As.

b) This amendment makes no additional changes, additions or deletions.

Ensure to follow the instructions included in Block 11 above.

Jacqueline Naranjo Contracting Officer mailto:maxwellre@mcc.gov

Solicitation Number: 95332418Q0118, Amendment 0001 Independent Evaluation in Support of the Morocco II Workforce Development Activity

1 | P a g e

Question 1: Please confirm whether an incumbent exists for this potential requirement. If so, please provide the following information?

a) Vendor name

b) Contract number

c) Value

d) Date of award

e) Expiration date

MCC Response: No incumbent exists for this requirement.

Question 2: Please provide instructions on how we should present the sample CBA model (as requested in section L.9.3.) within the context of our proposal, and clarify if this could be included as an appendix, to not count towards the 30 page limit of the technical proposal.

MCC Response: The sample CBA model can be submitted as an appendix. In lieu of submitting the model, offerors may also submit a 1-2 page description of the CBA model.

Question 3: So that offerors can budget adequately and provide sufficient detail in the technical proposal, could MCC provide further guidance on the role of the Workforce Development Activity evaluator in the separate impact evaluations that will be conducted for the RBF sub-activity as indicated on page 10 of the RFQ “MCC Funding will also support the development and implementation of rigorous impact evaluations to test promising labor market interventions, not limited to those interventions funded by this sub-activity?”

MCC Response: The impact evaluation initiative is part of the Results-Based Financing for Inclusive Employment Sub-Activity and, similar to all other components of the Workforce Development Activity, will be implemented and managed by the relevant MCA-Morocco project teams. No standalone research questions are posited for this initiative in the RFQ. However, as noted on page 12 of the RFQ, as part of Task 2, the Contractor shall develop a final list of research questions to be explored through the independent evaluation.

Question 4: The RFQ notes that the contractor should plan to conduct 7-9 grant-level evaluations for the private sector-driven TVET sub-activity. Is MCC interested in obtaining precise labor market outcomes for the grant-funded courses (including relative to other courses) for each of these grants separately, or for the 7-9 grants taken as a whole?

MCC Response: MCC is interested in obtaining labor market outcomes for the grant-funded courses for each of these grants separately. However, the technical value and feasibility of such an approach will be more fully explored by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract, allowing MCC, the evaluator, and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to agree on the design of the evaluation.

Question 5: Would MCC allow offerors to use TNR font, 10-point for tables?

MCC Response: Yes, per section L.6.5 “Times New Roman font, 10-point for spreadsheets and any font size for graphics as long as they are legible.”

2 | P a g e

Question 6: Please confirm the anticipated award ceiling for this evaluation. It wasn't entirely clear from the solicitation document whether there was a figure in mind given the scope of the tasks.

MCC Response: MCC will not disclose the anticipated ceiling. Offerors should propose based on the information provided in the solicitation and their professional experience with similar requirements.

Question 7: What criteria is being used for selecting grantees related to the TVET grants that will be administered through this program?

MCC Response: For more information on the process being used to select the grantees, please consult the website for the Charaka Fund (https://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/).

Question 8: The RFQ states that the “Workforce Development Activity will be a performance evaluation that includes analysis of longitudinal data on employment rates, salaries, and placements, as well as rigorous qualitative research.” Is the longitudinal data expected to be collected through this evaluation, or will the selected firm use secondary data collected via other sources?

MCC Response: As stated in the RFQ, during the life of the compact, the evaluator will be responsible for preparing and supervising data collection, with MCA-Morocco responsible for hiring the data collection firm(s) and funding data collection. For more information on the role of the evaluator, please see Task 3 and Task 4 of the RFQ. During the post-compact period (after June 2022), the evaluator will be responsible for hiring and managing the data collection firm(s). For more information on the role of the evaluator during this phase, please see Task 8 and Task 9 of the RFQ.

Question 9: To what extent will the selected contractor be expected to interface with MCC in the design of the longitudinal data collection plan?

MCC Response: The evaluator will be responsible for developing the evaluation design report (see Task 2). For more information on what will be expected as part of this report, please see the MCC Independent Evaluation Design Report Outline Template included as an attachment to the RFQ. Moreover, as stated in the RFQ (see section C.5), the responsibilities of the evaluator also include the following:

• Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards (Task 3 and Task 8)

• Ensure Institutional Review Board clearance of survey protocols (Task 4 and Task 9)

• Prepare and supervise data collection (during the compact) and manage the data collection firms

(post-compact) (Task 4 and Task 9)

• Ensure data quality during collection and entry through supervisions and management (Task 4 and Task 9)

• Lead data cleaning, analysis, and interpretation of results (Task 5 and Task 10)

Hence, the evaluator’s role will include technical leadership over all of these aspects and will involve close collaboration with both MCC and MCA-Morocco.

Question 10: On pg. 18, Section C.5, MCC describes Task 1 on assessing the evaluation plan. Does MCC expect the contractor to conduct the Evaluability Assessment as a desk review exclusively or will the contractor need to conduct some in-country assessment as well?

https://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/

3 | P a g e

MCC Response: The Evaluability Assessment is largely expected to be a desk review. However, it may prove useful to hold meetings in Morocco with MCA-Morocco and other relevant actors. Video conferences or teleconferences with stakeholders in Morocco could compliment these efforts or be conducted in place of travel. All travel must receive prior approval from MCC and be conducted in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ.

Question 11: The RFQ states that “Outcomes should be monitored through both quantitative and qualitative methods to follow a sample of those students who enter the compact-funded TVET programs, and those that enter other TVET programs”. Given this, we wanted to clarify if it is a longitudinal cohort study that MCC is expecting related to this component. If so, over what duration would data be collected for the cohort study and what’s the level of sampling representativeness expected from the cohort study?

MCC Response: MCC has posited that a longitudinal cohort study could be relevant for this component.

However, the technical value and feasibility of such an approach will be more fully explored by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract, allowing MCC, the evaluator, and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to agree on the design of the evaluation. As noted in the RFQ, offerors are expected to propose a period of evaluation that they believe to be reflective of the theory of change and the period of exposure.

Question 12: The RFQ mentions household surveys as a component of the baseline and endline evaluations. Can MCC clarify what data the survey is expected to collect and what sub-activity the household survey should focus on?

MCC Response: We believe you are referring to the following bullet point included under Task 3 and Task 8: “The Contractor is responsible for ensuring household surveys last no longer than 120 minutes without written consent from the Evaluation Management Committee.” Given that no household survey data is currently posited as part of the RFQ, this language should be adjusted to read as follows: “The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that surveys last no longer than 120 minutes without written consent from the Evaluation Management Committee.”

Question 13: Does MCC have a preferred sampling approach as it relates to data to be collected for the sub activities? If so, could this be shared with prospective offerors?

MCC Response: MCC does not have a preferred sampling approach. The sampling approaches for the quantitative and qualitative components of the evaluation will be developed by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract. For more information on what will be expected as part of the Evaluation Design Report, please see the MCC Independent Evaluation Design Report Outline Template in Section J.5 included as an annex to the RFQ. As noted on page 8 of the RFQ, MCC anticipates approximately $350,000.00 worth of data collection subcontracting costs during the post-Compact period in Option Period 4. Offerors should review the data collection plug number and, if they believe this plug number to be inadequate, should propose additional data collection funds for the post-Compact period.

Question 14: Due to the complexity of the evaluation, using robust quantitative and qualitative methods, we would appreciate a two-week extension to the deadline in order to ensure offerors have sufficient time to incorporate the feedback from the clarifications to be provided by MCC.

4 | P a g e

MCC Response: Unfortunately, MCC is unable to grant an extension for this requirement.

Question 15: On page 10, Activity III indicates that “MCC funding will also support the development and implementation of rigorous impact evaluations to test promising labor market interventions, not limited to those interventions funded by this sub-activity.” Can MCC please clarify:

a. Whether these impact evaluations are outside the scope of this evaluation or if they will be incorporated at some point during this evaluation activity?

b. If these impact evaluations are to be incorporated, will the team for this evaluation activity be informed or involved before the impact evaluation design is outlined?

MCC Response: The impact evaluation initiative is part of the Results-Based Financing for Inclusive Employment Sub-Activity and, similar to all other components of the Workforce Development Activity, will be implemented and managed by the relevant MCA-Morocco project teams. No standalone research questions are posited for the impact evaluation initiative in the RFQ. However, as noted on page 12 of the RFQ, the Contractor is expected to explicitly assess the program logic, key assumptions, and evaluation questions as part of the Evaluability Assessment (see Task 1) and Evaluation Design Report (see Task 2), recommending revisions, as necessary. As part of Task 2, the Contractor shall develop a final list of research questions to be explored through the independent evaluation.

Question 16: On page 12 the solicitation indicates that “While final evaluation design will be determined as part of Task 2, for the purposes of developing cost proposals, Offerors can assume between seven (7) and nine (9) grant-level evaluations.” Can MCC please clarify the expected scope for the grant-level evaluations to assist the offerors in developing the cost proposal?

MCC Response: The grant-level evaluations should include in-depth monitoring of the progress of the students enrolled in the programs that receive grants, including post-graduation achievements and employment outcomes. MCC has posited that a longitudinal cohort study, complimented by qualitative analysis, could be relevant for this component. However, the technical value and feasibility of such an approach will be more fully explored by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract, allowing MCC, the evaluator, and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to agree on the design of the evaluation.

Question 17: Would MCC please consider extending the due date for submission of quotations?

MCC Response: See Question 14 above.

Question 18: The TOR mention a grant level evaluation with a maximum of 25 grants offered through the Program and suggest that Contractors should assume 7 to 9 grant level evaluations. Could you please clarify this point? Are you referring to 9 different grants offered to TVET centers in Morocco?

MCC Response: The Private Sector-Driven TVET Sub-Activity will provide approximately 25 grants through the Charaka Fund. The facility-level evaluation will be conducted for the Charka Fund as a whole and should include an assessment of the quality, success, and sustainability of compact-funded programs with regards to private sector engagement, provision of skills demanded by the labor market, and employment outcomes of graduates. The grant-level evaluations should include more in-depth assessment

5 | P a g e of the progress of the students enrolled in each of those seven (7) to nine (9) programs that have received grants through the Charka Fund.

Question 19: What is the monetary size of the grant? Are there specific criteria that must be met to apply to all grants? And is the grant conditional or unconditional, meaning can a recipient center use discretionarily the grant?

MCC Response: All information related to the Charaka Fund can be obtained on its website (https://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/). In addition, the request for proposals in English is available at the following link: http://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/docs/Request_for_Proposals-Charaka_Fund.pdf.

Question 20: Do you have data on all TVET centers that applied for all grants? Can a center apply in more than one grant?

MCC Response: As noted on page 9 of the RFQ, the Charaka Fund grants will support: (1) establishing new TVET centers run by public-private partnerships (PPPs), or expanding existing TVET centers currently managed through PPPs; and (2) transforming existing public TVET centers from a traditional government-driven model to a private sector-driven model. Information is not yet available as to the breakdown of applications between the creation of new TVET centers, the expansion of existing TVET centers currently managed through PPPs, and the transformation of existing traditional centers. MCA- Morocco will facilitate the evaluator’s access to secondary data necessary to inform the design of the evaluation and to conduct the evaluation.

With regards to the criteria governing the Charaka Fund, please see the response to Question 19 above.

Question 21: Will the contractor conduct the data collection itself or is it required that the contractor hire another firm to carry out data collection?

MCC Response: As stated in the RFQ, during the life of the compact, the evaluator will be responsible for preparing and supervising data collection, with MCA-Morocco responsible for hiring the data collection firm(s) and funding data collection. For more information on the role of the evaluator, please see Task 3 and Task 4 of the RFQ. During the post-compact period (after June 2022), the evaluator will be responsible for hiring and managing the data collection firm(s); if the evaluator prefers and has the capacity and experience to do so, they may conduct data collection. For more information on the role of the evaluator during this phase, please see Task 8 and Task 9 in Section C of the RFQ.

Question 22: Have some centers already started receiving grant funds? If so, what type of baseline information do you expect us to collect? If the program has already started, should we take that into account when designing the evaluation framework?

MCC Response: The Charaka Fund has not disbursed any grant funds to date. Prior to preparing and supervising baseline data collection, the evaluator will assess the program logic, key assumptions, and evaluation questions as part of the Evaluability Assessment (see Task 1) and will develop the evaluation design report (see Task 2). For more information on the context of these deliverables, please see the templates included in the attachments to the RFQ.

http://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/docs/Request_for_Proposals-Charaka_Fund.pdf

6 | P a g e

Question 23: What is the ceiling amount for the base period?

MCC Response: MCC will not disclose the anticipated base period ceiling amount. Offerors should propose based on the information provided in the solicitation and their professional experience with similar requirements.

Question 24: Could you please share the number of men-days for each of the key personnel?

MCC Response: As outlined in Section H.16 and H.17 of the RFQ, the key personnel shall, at a minimum, include the Program Manager, Senior Analyst – Workforce Development, and Senior Analyst

– Qualitative Methods. Offerors may propose additional key personnel as part of their staffing plan and shall ensure that the evaluation team as a whole satisfies the requirements detailed in section H.17.1.

Hence, the level of effort will depend on the composition of the offeror’s proposed evaluation team and on the offeror’s proposed evaluation design described in the technical quotation.

1 | P a g e

Question 1: Please confirm whether an incumbent exists for this potential requirement. If so, please provide the following information?

a) Vendor name

b) Contract number

c) Value

d) Date of award

e) Expiration date

MCC Response: No incumbent exists for this requirement.

Question 2: Please provide instructions on how we should present the sample CBA model (as requested in section L.9.3.) within the context of our proposal, and clarify if this could be included as an appendix, to not count towards the 30 page limit of the technical proposal.

MCC Response: The sample CBA model can be submitted as an appendix. In lieu of submitting the model, offerors may also submit a 1-2 page description of the CBA model.

Question 3: So that offerors can budget adequately and provide sufficient detail in the technical proposal, could MCC provide further guidance on the role of the Workforce Development Activity evaluator in the separate impact evaluations that will be conducted for the RBF sub-activity as indicated on page 10 of the RFQ “MCC Funding will also support the development and implementation of rigorous impact evaluations to test promising labor market interventions, not limited to those interventions funded by this sub-activity?”

will be implemented and managed by the relevant MCA-Morocco project teams. No standalone research questions are posited for this initiative in the RFQ. However, as noted on page 12 of the RFQ, as part of Task 2, the Contractor shall develop a final list of research questions to be explored through the independent evaluation.

Question 4: The RFQ notes that the contractor should plan to conduct 7-9 grant-level evaluations for the private sector-driven TVET sub-activity. Is MCC interested in obtaining precise labor market outcomes for the grant-funded courses (including relative to other courses) for each of these grants separately, or for the 7-9 grants taken as a whole?

MCC Response: MCC is interested in obtaining labor market outcomes for the grant-funded courses for each of these grants separately. However, the technical value and feasibility of such an approach will be more fully explored by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract, allowing MCC, the evaluator, and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to agree on the design of the evaluation.

Question 5: Would MCC allow offerors to use TNR font, 10-point for tables?

MCC Response: Yes, per section L.6.5 “Times New Roman font, 10-point for spreadsheets and any font size for graphics as long as they are legible.”

2 | P a g e

Question 6: Please confirm the anticipated award ceiling for this evaluation. It wasn't entirely clear from the solicitation document whether there was a figure in mind given the scope of the tasks.

MCC Response: MCC will not disclose the anticipated ceiling. Offerors should propose based on the information provided in the solicitation and their professional experience with similar requirements.

Question 7: What criteria is being used for selecting grantees related to the TVET grants that will be administered through this program?

MCC Response: For more information on the process being used to select the grantees, please consult the website for the Charaka Fund (https://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/).

Question 8: The RFQ states that the “Workforce Development Activity will be a performance evaluation that includes analysis of longitudinal data on employment rates, salaries, and placements, as well as rigorous qualitative research.” Is the longitudinal data expected to be collected through this evaluation, or will the selected firm use secondary data collected via other sources?

MCC Response: As stated in the RFQ, during the life of the compact, the evaluator will be responsible for preparing and supervising data collection, with MCA-Morocco responsible for hiring the data collection firm(s) and funding data collection. For more information on the role of the evaluator, please see Task 3 and Task 4 of the RFQ. During the post-compact period (after June 2022), the evaluator will be responsible for hiring and managing the data collection firm(s). For more information on the role of the evaluator during this phase, please see Task 8 and Task 9 of the RFQ.

Question 9: To what extent will the selected contractor be expected to interface with MCC in the design of the longitudinal data collection plan?

MCC Response: The evaluator will be responsible for developing the evaluation design report (see Task 2). For more information on what will be expected as part of this report, please see the MCC Independent Evaluation Design Report Outline Template included as an attachment to the RFQ. Moreover, as stated in the RFQ (see section C.5), the responsibilities of the evaluator also include the following:

• Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards (Task 3 and Task 8)

• Ensure Institutional Review Board clearance of survey protocols (Task 4 and Task 9)

• Prepare and supervise data collection (during the compact) and manage the data collection firms

(post-compact) (Task 4 and Task 9)

• Ensure data quality during collection and entry through supervisions and management (Task 4 and Task 9)

• Lead data cleaning, analysis, and interpretation of results (Task 5 and Task 10)

Hence, the evaluator’s role will include technical leadership over all of these aspects and will involve close collaboration with both MCC and MCA-Morocco.

Question 10: On pg. 18, Section C.5, MCC describes Task 1 on assessing the evaluation plan. Does MCC expect the contractor to conduct the Evaluability Assessment as a desk review exclusively or will the contractor need to conduct some in-country assessment as well?

3 | P a g e

MCC Response: The Evaluability Assessment is largely expected to be a desk review. However, it may prove useful to hold meetings in Morocco with MCA-Morocco and other relevant actors. Video conferences or teleconferences with stakeholders in Morocco could compliment these efforts or be conducted in place of travel. All travel must receive prior approval from MCC and be conducted in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFQ.

Question 11: The RFQ states that “Outcomes should be monitored through both quantitative and qualitative methods to follow a sample of those students who enter the compact-funded TVET programs, and those that enter other TVET programs”. Given this, we wanted to clarify if it is a longitudinal cohort study that MCC is expecting related to this component. If so, over what duration would data be collected for the cohort study and what’s the level of sampling representativeness expected from the cohort study?

MCC Response: MCC has posited that a longitudinal cohort study could be relevant for this component.

However, the technical value and feasibility of such an approach will be more fully explored by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract, allowing MCC, the evaluator, and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to agree on the design of the evaluation. As noted in the RFQ, offerors are expected to propose a period of evaluation that they believe to be reflective of the theory of change and the period of exposure.

Question 12: The RFQ mentions household surveys as a component of the baseline and endline evaluations. Can MCC clarify what data the survey is expected to collect and what sub-activity the household survey should focus on?

MCC Response: We believe you are referring to the following bullet point included under Task 3 and Task 8: “The Contractor is responsible for ensuring household surveys last no longer than 120 minutes without written consent from the Evaluation Management Committee.” Given that no household survey data is currently posited as part of the RFQ, this language should be adjusted to read as follows: “The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that surveys last no longer than 120 minutes without written consent from the Evaluation Management Committee.”

Question 13: Does MCC have a preferred sampling approach as it relates to data to be collected for the sub activities? If so, could this be shared with prospective offerors?

MCC Response: MCC does not have a preferred sampling approach. The sampling approaches for the quantitative and qualitative components of the evaluation will be developed by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract. For more information on what will be expected as part of the Evaluation Design Report, please see the MCC Independent Evaluation Design Report Outline Template in Section J.5 included as an annex to the RFQ. As noted on page 8 of the RFQ, MCC anticipates approximately $350,000.00 worth of data collection subcontracting costs during the post-Compact period in Option Period 4. Offerors should review the data collection plug number and, if they believe this plug number to be inadequate, should propose additional data collection funds for the post-Compact period.

Question 14: Due to the complexity of the evaluation, using robust quantitative and qualitative methods, we would appreciate a two-week extension to the deadline in order to ensure offerors have sufficient time to incorporate the feedback from the clarifications to be provided by MCC.

4 | P a g e

MCC Response: Unfortunately, MCC is unable to grant an extension for this requirement.

Question 15: On page 10, Activity III indicates that “MCC funding will also support the development and implementation of rigorous impact evaluations to test promising labor market interventions, not limited to those interventions funded by this sub-activity.” Can MCC please clarify:

a. Whether these impact evaluations are outside the scope of this evaluation or if they will be incorporated at some point during this evaluation activity?

b. If these impact evaluations are to be incorporated, will the team for this evaluation activity be informed or involved before the impact evaluation design is outlined?

will be implemented and managed by the relevant MCA-Morocco project teams. No standalone research questions are posited for the impact evaluation initiative in the RFQ. However, as noted on page 12 of the RFQ, the Contractor is expected to explicitly assess the program logic, key assumptions, and evaluation questions as part of the Evaluability Assessment (see Task 1) and Evaluation Design Report (see Task 2), recommending revisions, as necessary. As part of Task 2, the Contractor shall develop a final list of research questions to be explored through the independent evaluation.

Question 16: On page 12 the solicitation indicates that “While final evaluation design will be determined as part of Task 2, for the purposes of developing cost proposals, Offerors can assume between seven (7) and nine (9) grant-level evaluations.” Can MCC please clarify the expected scope for the grant-level evaluations to assist the offerors in developing the cost proposal?

MCC Response: The grant-level evaluations should include in-depth monitoring of the progress of the students enrolled in the programs that receive grants, including post-graduation achievements and employment outcomes. MCC has posited that a longitudinal cohort study, complimented by qualitative analysis, could be relevant for this component. However, the technical value and feasibility of such an approach will be more fully explored by the evaluator as part of Task 2 of the contract, allowing MCC, the evaluator, and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco to agree on the design of the evaluation.

Question 17: Would MCC please consider extending the due date for submission of quotations?

MCC Response: See Question 14 above.

Question 18: The TOR mention a grant level evaluation with a maximum of 25 grants offered through the Program and suggest that Contractors should assume 7 to 9 grant level evaluations. Could you please clarify this point? Are you referring to 9 different grants offered to TVET centers in Morocco?

MCC Response: The Private Sector-Driven TVET Sub-Activity will provide approximately 25 grants through the Charaka Fund. The facility-level evaluation will be conducted for the Charka Fund as a whole and should include an assessment of the quality, success, and sustainability of compact-funded programs with regards to private sector engagement, provision of skills demanded by the labor market, and employment outcomes of graduates. The grant-level evaluations should include more in-depth assessment

5 | P a g e of the progress of the students enrolled in each of those seven (7) to nine (9) programs that have received grants through the Charka Fund.

Question 19: What is the monetary size of the grant? Are there specific criteria that must be met to apply to all grants? And is the grant conditional or unconditional, meaning can a recipient center use discretionarily the grant?

MCC Response: All information related to the Charaka Fund can be obtained on its website (https://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/). In addition, the request for proposals in English is available at the following link: http://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/docs/Request_for_Proposals-Charaka_Fund.pdf.

Question 20: Do you have data on all TVET centers that applied for all grants? Can a center apply in more than one grant?

MCC Response: As noted on page 9 of the RFQ, the Charaka Fund grants will support: (1) establishing new TVET centers run by public-private partnerships (PPPs), or expanding existing TVET centers currently managed through PPPs; and (2) transforming existing public TVET centers from a traditional government-driven model to a private sector-driven model. Information is not yet available as to the breakdown of applications between the creation of new TVET centers, the expansion of existing TVET centers currently managed through PPPs, and the transformation of existing traditional centers. MCA- Morocco will facilitate the evaluator’s access to secondary data necessary to inform the design of the evaluation and to conduct the evaluation.

With regards to the criteria governing the Charaka Fund, please see the response to Question 19 above.

Question 21: Will the contractor conduct the data collection itself or is it required that the contractor hire another firm to carry out data collection?

MCC Response: As stated in the RFQ, during the life of the compact, the evaluator will be responsible for preparing and supervising data collection, with MCA-Morocco responsible for hiring the data collection firm(s) and funding data collection. For more information on the role of the evaluator, please see Task 3 and Task 4 of the RFQ. During the post-compact period (after June 2022), the evaluator will be responsible for hiring and managing the data collection firm(s); if the evaluator prefers and has the capacity and experience to do so, they may conduct data collection. For more information on the role of the evaluator during this phase, please see Task 8 and Task 9 in Section C of the RFQ.

Question 22: Have some centers already started receiving grant funds? If so, what type of baseline information do you expect us to collect? If the program has already started, should we take that into account when designing the evaluation framework?

MCC Response: The Charaka Fund has not disbursed any grant funds to date. Prior to preparing and supervising baseline data collection, the evaluator will assess the program logic, key assumptions, and evaluation questions as part of the Evaluability Assessment (see Task 1) and will develop the evaluation design report (see Task 2). For more information on the context of these deliverables, please see the templates included in the attachments to the RFQ.

http://charaka.mcamorocco.ma/docs/Request_for_Proposals-Charaka_Fund.pdf

6 | P a g e

Question 23: What is the ceiling amount for the base period?

MCC Response: MCC will not disclose the anticipated base period ceiling amount. Offerors should propose based on the information provided in the solicitation and their professional experience with similar requirements.

Question 24: Could you please share the number of men-days for each of the key personnel?

MCC Response: As outlined in Section H.16 and H.17 of the RFQ, the key personnel shall, at a minimum, include the Program Manager, Senior Analyst – Workforce Development, and Senior Analyst

– Qualitative Methods. Offerors may propose additional key personnel as part of their staffing plan and shall ensure that the evaluation team as a whole satisfies the requirements detailed in section H.17.1.

Hence, the level of effort will depend on the composition of the offeror’s proposed evaluation team and on the offeror’s proposed evaluation design described in the technical quotation.