95332418Q0133_SOW_-_Morocco_I_Small_Scale_Fisheries.pdf

PAGE 1 OF

1. REQUISITION NO.

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NO. 5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

a. NAME b. TELEPHONE NO. (No Collect Calls) 8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL

TIME

9. ISSUED BY CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS UNRESTRICTED OR SET ASIDE: % FOR:

SMALL BUSINESS

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

(WOSB) ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

8(A)

NAICS:

SIZE STANDARD:

11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13b. RATING

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFP

15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY CODE

17a. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR CODE FACILITY CODE 18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

TELEPHONE NO. DUNS: DUNS+4:

PHONE: FAX:

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER 18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a UNLESS BLOCK BELOW IS CHECKED

SEE ADDENDUM

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

ITEM NO. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

(Use Reverse and/or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary)

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA 26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Govt. Use Only)

27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1, 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3 AND 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED.

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN _______________ 29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF. ___________________________________ OFFER COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND DATED ________________________________. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY (BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED SET FORTH HEREIN IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (TYPE OR PRINT) 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (TYPE OR PRINT) 31c. DATE SIGNED

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION (REV. 2/2012)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

STANDARD FORM 1449

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, & 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS 67

95332418Q0133 07/19/2018

Courtney Warren 202-521-3600 08/24/2018 @ 12pm ET

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700, Attn: Courtney Warren, 202-521-3600 Washington DC 20005

X

N/A

CGM

1099 Fourteenth Street NW, Suite 700

Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700

Interior Business Center M/S D-2773 7301 West Mansfield Avenue Lakewood CO 80235-2230

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6 and conducted per the procedures of FAR Subpart 13.5, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.

MCC seeks a Contractor to provide Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Project.

See enclosed solicitation and all attachments for pertinent details.

See CONTINUATION Page

X X

Jacqueline H. Naranjo

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 2

Table of Contents

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. Price/Cost Schedule B.2. FAR 52.216-1 -- Type of Contract (APR 1984) B.3. Accounting and Appropriation Data B.4. Funding Type B.5. Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts B.6. Labor Rates & Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1. Introduction and Background C.2. Scope C.3. Evaluation Questions and Guidance on Methodology C.4. Roles and Responsibilities C.5. Tasks

SECTION D – PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1. Disclaimer for Deliverables

SECTION E – INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1. Inspection of Reports E.2. Quality Control Plan

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1. Period of Performance F.2. Place of Performance F.3. Deliverables F.4. Reporting Deliverables F.5. Deliverable Format F.6. Acceptance Criteria

SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.1. MCC 52.201-70 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Project Monitor (PM) (JULY 2012) ...24 G.2. MCC 52.232-70 Invoice Instructions (Custom)

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1. MCC 52.203-70 Contractor Non-Disclosure Agreement (MAY 2017) H.2. MCC 52.204-70 Security Requirements for Contractor Personnel (MAY 2013) H.3. MCC 52.209-70 Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Implementation Contract (JULY 2012) H.4. MCC 52.232-72 Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts (NOV 2006) H.5. MCC 52.232-73 Travel Reimbursement (MAY 2017) H.6. MCC 52.232-74 ODC Reimbursement (JAN 2007) H.7. MCC 52.242-70 Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) Registration (AUG 2011) ..35 H.8. MCC 52.243-70 Increase in Services (OCT 2006) H.9. MCC 52.245-70 Contractor Acquired MCC Government Property Overseas (JULY 2012) H.10. Peer Review and Posting of Reports

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 3

H.11. Insurance Maintenance H.12. Stakeholder Input for Evaluation Products H.13. Human Subjects Protection H.14. Personally Identifiable Information and Confidentiality H.15. Delivered Work Product Free from 3rd Party Rights H.16. Key Personnel H.17. Team & Key Personnel Qualifications

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1. FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions — Commercial Items/Alternate I (JAN 2017) I.2. FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items (JAN 2018) I.3. FAR 52.214-34 Submission of Offers in the English Language (APR 1991) I.4. FAR 52.214-35 Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency (APR 1991) I.5. FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (MAR 2000) I.6. FAR 52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998)

PART III – LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION K – REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1. Inquiries/Questions Concerning the Solicitation L.2. Exclusion of Quotes and Pre-Award Communications with Offerors L.3. Quotation Due Date L.4. Quotation Response L.5. Quotation Volumes L.6. Quotation Format L.7. Blocked and Unacceptable Electronic File Types L.8. Page Limits L.9. Preparation of Volume I – Technical Quotation L.10. Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (OCT 2014) M.2. Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Capability M.3. Evaluation Factor 2 – Past Performance M.4. Evaluation Factor 3 – Price M.5. Basis for Award

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 4

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. Price/Cost Schedule

CLIN Description of Supplies/Services Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 BASE PERIOD

DIRECT LABOR & OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

1001 OPTION PERIOD I

DIRECT LABOR &OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

2001 OPTION PERIOD II

DIRECT LABOR & OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

TOTAL ESTIMATED PRICE: _______________

B.2. FAR 52.216-1 -- Type of Contract (APR 1984) The Government contemplates award of a time-and-materials (T&M) contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of Provision)

B.3. Accounting and Appropriation Data

[RESERVED]

B.4. Funding Type This contract will be funded, at time of award, with no-year Due Diligence funding. As such, funding obligated to this contract may be used during the life of the contract.

B.5. Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts

In accordance with clause MCC 52.232-72, “Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts,” funds in the amount of [TBD] have been allotted to this contract. It is contemplated that funds now obligated under this contract will cover the

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 5 work to be performed until [TBD]. If the contractor considers the funds obligated under this contract to be insufficient to cover the work to be performed until the date specified herein, or another date agreed to by the parties, the contractor shall notify the contracting officer in writing and indicate the date on which it expects expended funds to approximate 75 percent of the total amount obligated. The notice shall state the estimated amount of additional funds required to continue performance through the date for which incremental funds are provided.

The Contractor shall not perform work on the contract which exceeds the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. The Government is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract. The contractor assumes the risk for any increased costs beyond what the Government obligates.

B.6. Labor Rates & Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

Labor rates at the inception of a contract period will carry through as “fixed-price” without adjustment for the life of that contract period.

Hours by labor category and pricing under ODCs are estimates only and may be increased/decreased as necessary for successful completion of the contract requirements and as approved by the COR/PM. However, the contractor’s expenditures at any given point shall not exceed the total obligated amount or the total ceiling price for this contract as specified below.

Using the template below, Offerors must include all proposed labor categories, fully-burdened hourly rates and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for each contract period identified in B.1.

PRICING SUMMARY PER CONTRACT PERIOD

Base Option 1 Option 2 TOTAL

Total Labor Hours Total Labor Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - Total ODCs $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Est. Cost $ - $ - $ - $ -

Base Period – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months) Item # Description(2) U/I Qty Rate Total

LABOR

0001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total Total Estimated Value (Base Period)

Option Period I – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

1001 hr.

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 6 hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

1001 Subcontract(s) – Data Collection (optional) Lot $250,000.00

Total Estimated Value (Option Period I)

Option Period II – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

2001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

2001 Subcontract(s) – Data Collection (optional) Lot $150,000.00

Total Estimated Value (Option Period II)

TOTAL COST SUMMARY

Description(2) U/I Qty Rate Total

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

Subcontract(s) – Data Collection (optional) Lot $400,000.00

Total Estimated Cost

NOTE (1): MCC anticipates approximately $400,000.00 ($250K allotted to Option Period 1 and $150K allotted to Option Period II) worth of data collection subcontracting costs for which the requirements are unknown at this time. To be fair to all vendors providing a quotation, a plug number is utilized for data collection subcontracting costs in the respective years in which data collection is expected to occur. However, if you believe this plug number is inadequate, please advise during the Question and Answer period of the solicitation. “Data Collection

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 7

Subcontract(s),” as used in the tables above, refers only to the cost of subcontracting a data collection firm and any associated indirect costs (e.g., subcontract handling fees). It does not include any prime contractor labor associated with overseeing/managing the data collection effort;

this time should be incorporated into the level of effort proposed under the respective “Direct Labor” CLIN. Subcontracting costs for data collection are subject to the requirements of FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts.

NOTE (2): A job description shall be included for each labor category proposed. The job description must identify essential and non-essential tasks that are assigned to a specific position.

It must also identify reporting relationships and shall also describe required qualifications, minimum requirements, working conditions and desirable qualifications.

(End of SECTION B)

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 8

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1. Introduction and Background

In August 2007, the United States of America, acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”), signed a five-year, $697.5 million Compact with the Kingdom of Morocco. The MCC Compact in Morocco entered into force (EIF) in September 2008, formally initiating the 5-year timeline for project implementation. The compact closed in September 2013, although certain post-compact evaluation activities are still ongoing.

The compact investments are composed of five projects:

I. Fruit Tree Productivity Project ($323.4 million1) II. Small Scale Fishing Project ($111.3 million) III. Artisan and Fez Medina Project ($84 million) IV. Enterprise Support Project ($15.1 million) V. Financial Services Project ($42.8 million)

1 Budget amounts reported here are based on final amount disbursed.

Reduce poverty in Morocco through economic growth by improving productivity and employment in sectors with the greatest potential

Compact Goal

O bj ec tiv es

Fruit Tree Productivity

Stimulate growth in the agricultural sector and reduce the volatility of agricultural production by restructuring f farming f rom grains towards f ruit tree cultivation

Expansion of area planted in olives, almonds, and f igs;

Rehabilitation of existing olive, almond, f ig and date orchards;

rehabilitation of irrigation systems feeding PMH (olives) and oases (dates) perimeters;

Strengthen ing the olive and date value chains Training of benef iciaries in functional literacy

O ut pu ts

Supported by modern landing-site inf rastructure, equipment and storage facilities, develop value-chain activities related to the f ishing industry encouraging greater access to national and international markets, while improving the f ish quality and preserving resources

Construction of f ish landing sites and port facilities Construction of wholesale markets Equipping mobile f ish vendors with motorcycles and insulated boxes Training boat owners Developing 4 to 8 f ishing value-chain projects for women Training of benef iciaries in functional literacy

Small Scale Fishing

Artisan and Fez Medina

Increase tourist revenue through better integration Improve the quality of artisan goods Increase revenue f rom cultural and architectural sites in the Fez Medina Improve the education and professional qualif ications of Compact benef iciaries

Artisan training Creation of a quality label for Moroccan handicraf ts Creation of new tourist circuits and renovation of existing circuits Rehabilitation of historic sites in the Fez Medina Promotion of artisan goods Training of benef iciaries in functional literacy and professional training

Enterprise Support

Financial Services

Training and post-creation technical assistance to young entrepreneurs in the Moukawalati et des AGR/INDH programs

Improve the outcomes of the Moukalawati and INDH programs by increasing the viability of young enterprises created through these programs

Improve micro-enterprise services and remove most severe constraints to the development of the microf inance sector based on market principals

Ensure funding of the micro-credit sector through the Jaida Fund

Develop new f inancial products

Improve ef f iciency and transparency of the microf inance sector

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 9

More information and relevant documents, including the compact agreement, cost-benefit analysis models, and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Plans for the compact, are available at: https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/program/morocco-compact.

The objective of the Small Scale Fisheries Project is to improve the quality of fish moving through domestic channels and assure the sustainable use of fishing resources. The investment seeks to modernize the conditions for landing, storing, and marketing fish, thereby improving the quality of the catch, maintaining the value chain, and increasing fishers’ access to both local and export markets. The Small-Scale Fisheries Project is comprised of three activities:

a. Fish Landing Sites and Port Facilities Activity: This activity is responsible for constructing fish landing sites (Points de Débarquement Aménagés or PDAs) along both the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts, and to construct or upgrade port facilities in major existing ports for the benefit of small-scale fishers. The interventions include:

(i) the construction of 11 landing sites equipped with essential services to fishers and an auction hall where catches can be sold immediately at market prices; (ii) the improvement of up to 10 port facilities with appropriate infrastructure as well as an auction hall; (iii) technical and training assistance for fishers based at PDAs on the conservation of marine resources and management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), improved techniques of hygiene and safety at sea, and business development skills; and (iv) putting in place 3 MPAs.

b. Wholesale Fish Markets Activity: This activity is concerned with the building or re-building of modern wholesale markets in selected cities along with the technical and training assistance required to ensure proper management.

The interventions include: (i) the construction of up to five wholesale fish markets in major cities, mainly located in the interior of the country (Marrakech, Meknes, Taza, Beni-Mellal, and Rabat); and (ii) technical and training assistance to the National Bureau for Fisheries (Office National des Pêches or ONP) staff, market managers and personnel of the wholesale markets, and private sector users in topics such as management, hygiene, and sanitation.

c. Mobile Fish Vendors Activity: According to ONP, there are 5,000 mobile fish vendors serving principally poor urban populations. Some have small motorcycles or three-wheeled bikes, while others operate with donkey-drawn or hand-pulled carts. Typically, the fish are stored in non-insulated boxes or cupboards, often without ice, hence fish quality and value decline rapidly. To improve the productivity of the fish vendor sector, this activity includes the following interventions: (i) financing 30% of mobile fish vending equipment cost for modern, heavy-duty, 3-wheeled motorbikes equipped with insulated ice chests for up to 2,000 mobile fish vendors with the remaining investment subsidized by the National Initiative for Human Development and a small contribution (10% to 15%) by the fish vendors; and (ii) technical and training assistance to those fish vendors in fish regulations, proper hygiene, product handling, quality preservation, small business management, formation of associations/cooperatives of fish vendors, and access to financial services.

C.2. Scope

Provide Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Fish Landing Sites and Port Facilities Activity and the Wholesale Fish Markets Activity of the Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Project2.

2 The Mobile Fish Vendors Activity was the subject of a previous evaluation and, thus, will not be included in the independent evaluation that is the subject of the present RFQ.

https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/program/morocco-compact https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/program/morocco-compact

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 10

C.3. Evaluation Questions and Guidance on Methodology

The evaluation will seek to understand the degree to which planned investments were implemented, the validity of the program logic (see below) and its assumptions, output and outcome results attributable to the activities, and lessons learned from implementation.

As reflected in the program logic, MCC and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco (GoM) have posited a set of assumptions linking the selected investment to key outputs and outcomes. The program logic and assumptions have informed the list of evaluation questions below. However, the Contractor is expected to explicitly assess the program logic, assumptions, and evaluation questions as part of the Evaluability Assessment (see Task 1) and the Evaluation Design Report (see Task 2), recommending revisions, as necessary.

Potential methodologies for evaluating the activities cited in section C.1 are presented below with information on expected data sources. Offerors are expected to review and elaborate on these preliminary designs in the proposal. To the extent possible, Offerors are also expected to review the descriptions of the data sources listed and provide input on using them to meet the needs of the evaluation. MCC anticipates that these data may prove useful for the evaluation but recognizes that additional data sources may be necessary.

The list below represents a broad set of potential questions of interest to MCC, the GoM, and other relevant stakeholders.

As part of Task 2, the Contractor shall develop a final list of research questions to be explored through the independent evaluation.

The evaluation of the Small-Scale Fisheries Project will be a performance evaluation that includes quantitative analysis as well as rigorous qualitative research. The Contractor will be expected to explore the most rigorous methods feasible to evaluate the activities. The completion of Tasks 1 and 2 will afford the Contractor the opportunity to determine the appropriate balance between evaluation rigor and cost, according to the conditions of each activity in terms of data availability, timeline and exposure period, and the particularities of the activities’ implementation. The evaluation of the Fish Landing Sites and Port Facilities Activity and the Wholesale Fish Markets Activity are likely to be completed on a shorter timeline than the evaluation of the Marine Protected Areas Sub-Activity. Although the timelines for each component may not match up perfectly, the Contractor should propose an innovative strategy that incorporates all of the components in one evaluation, and ultimately one final report.

Increase economic growth and reduce poverty among participants in small-scale fisheries sector

Development of Fish Landing

Sites and Port Facilities result:

preserved quality and increased value of fish catch, and reduced cost of doing business for small- scale fishermen

Improve quality of fish moving through domestic channels and assure the substainable use of fishing resources

Development of Wholesale Fish

Markets result:

increased value and share of fish sold through wholesale market network

Support to Mobile Fish Vendors result:

increased value, volume and marketing range of mobile fish vendors

Program Goal

Project Objective

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 11

C.3.1 Fish Landing Sites (PDAs) and Port Facilities Activity

Evaluation Questions:

1. What are the impacts of the activity on beneficiaries3 and project participants?

a. Is there an improvement in fishers’ earnings at the PDAs and ports constructed or upgraded by the project?

2. Have the infrastructure improvements and training led to improvements in the quality of fish caught? If so, do these improvements translate to higher prices received by fishers for their fish?

3. Has there been an increase in the number of fishers using the newly constructed or upgraded infrastructure?

4. Have fishers adopted the recommended techniques included in the trainings provided by the project?

5. Are the professional organizations that received training and technical assistance through the project still operational? If so, what services do they provide for their members? Are the members satisfied with these services? Are the services provided to the members sustainable after project completion?

6. To what extent have national practices in environmental and social management improved during the implementation of the project?

7. What are the impacts of the project at the institutional level? Have the results or lessons learned from the project influenced the design and/or implementation of similar investments by the ONP and the Department of Fisheries?

The Small-Scale Fisheries Project was the subject of a performance evaluation in 2013. Early outcomes and impacts were assessed for only one PDA (Tifnit) and one port (Tan Tan) that had been operational for almost a year before the end of the Compact. This evaluation is intended to complete the final project evaluation by covering the remaining 19 sites constructed/equipped by the project (10 PDAs and nine ports), in addition to the sites included in the 2013 evaluation.

Data Availability:

National Institute for Fishery Research (Institut National de Recherche Halieutique or INRH) has been collecting data on a representative sample of fishers through baseline and endline surveys. To account for seasonality, surveys took place over a year before project investments started and a year after each site was operationalized. The Contractor will have access to the data collected by INRH and all project feasibility studies.

C.3.2 Wholesale Fish Markets Activity

Evaluation Questions:

1. Did fish consumption increase thanks to the construction of the wholesale market in the five cities where wholesale markets were constructed? How did fish consumption evolve in cities where wholesale market existed before the project (Rabat, Meknes and Marrakech) as compared to cities where wholesale markets were built for the first time (Taza and Beni Mellal)?

2. Were consumers’ preferences affected by wholesale markets in terms of fish consumption? Is the nutritional status of populations in cities and neighboring region improved due to a higher consumption of fish?

3. Did the activity increase the volume of fish marketed through wholesale markets?

3 MCC considers beneficiaries of projects to be those people who experience better standards of living as a result of the project through higher real incomes. Consistent with standard poverty measurement practices, MCC considers the household the most practical unit of measurement, which reflects the underlying assumption that when one household member earns additional income, all household members benefit. As such, MCC defines and counts as beneficiaries all members of households that have at least one individual who realizes income gains. For more information, please consult the MCC Guidelines for Economic and Beneficiary Analysis: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/story/story-cdg-guidelines-for-economic-and-beneficiary-analysis.

https://www.mcc.gov/resources/story/story-cdg-guidelines-for-economic-and-beneficiary-analysis

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 12

4. Did the construction of a wholesale market increase the performance of the value chain of fishery products? If so, how?

5. Is there an impact on retail fish marketing? On job creation?

Data Availability:

Baseline data collection was carried out in 2010 to estimate fish consumption in the five cities where wholesale markets were constructed.

More broadly, the data available for this activity includes:

a. Project studies related to wholesale markets;

b. Database and final report for the baseline survey; and

c. Economic analysis of the wholesale market activity.

C.3.3 Marine Protected Areas Sub-Activity

Evaluation Questions:

1. What is the state of fish resources in the three MPAs?

2. Has the sub-activity had an impact on the marine ecosystem, including flora and fauna, in the three MPAs? In particular, did the sub-activity have an impact on the sustainability of marine resources?

3. What impact, if any, did the sub-activity have on the income of fishers operating in the MPAs?

4. Are the rules of governance of the MPAs by artisan fishers? By other actors and other types of fishing activities?

a. Have fishers adopted the practices recommended by the project?

5. Has the sub-activity influenced how the GoM manages its marine resources?

Data Availability:

The available data for this activity is limited to the strategy of MPAs, where data was collected through qualitative approaches.

C.4. Roles and Responsibilities

A. Independence:

MCC’s Policy on Independent Evaluations. Based on the 1991 DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance, MCC’s Evaluation Policy requires independent evaluations of each MCC project. MCC’s implementation of this independence policy adheres to these principles, especially the following: “Impartiality and independence will best be achieved by separating the evaluation function from the line management responsible for planning and managing development assistance.” (P.6.)

Organizational Conflicts of Interest. MCC-M&E is responsible for adhering to our policy-driven requirements for independence. These requirements are distinct from Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) proscribed in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Interpretations and enforcement of the OCI statutes are the remit of our Office of General Counsel.

Independence of Evaluation Team. Evaluation team members must be impartial and therefore should not have contributed to the design or implementation of the project being evaluated. In cases where individuals or firms that have worked on the project are proposed to be part of the evaluation team, a justification and independence risk mitigation plan must be provided to MCC for consideration.

http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/45438179.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/45438179.pdf

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 13

The Independent Evaluator’s Role. To remain consistent with the principles of independent evaluations during project planning and implementation, the independent evaluator’s feedback is restricted to reporting evidence and findings.

Recommendations shall not be made before completing a final evaluation as they can influence project planning or implementation, thereby jeopardizing the independence an evaluation. Prescriptions and recommendations may be included in final evaluations.

Real-time feedback to project implementation. MCC supports monitoring and evaluation activities intended to provide feedback on how to improve program planning and implementation. But this support shall be separate from the independent evaluator. Any contribution of the Independent Evaluator to this feedback shall be limited to reporting evidence and findings. Any exceptions to this rule must be approved in advance by the EMC.

B. MCC & GoM Responsibilities: The MCC, GoM, along with the Independent Evaluator, play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating the independent evaluations. The MCC and GoM roles are defined below.

For further detail, please see Section J.1: Evaluation Management and Review Process.

1. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC): MCC is responsible for oversight of the Independent Evaluator and quality control of evaluation activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

a. Determine what program components (Project(s), Activities, Sub-Activities) will be covered by the evaluation;

b. Set the evaluation questions to achieve accountability and learning objectives;

c. Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation;

d. Contract and Supervise the Independent Evaluator;

e. Conduct quality reviews of all evaluation products (reports, questionnaires, etc);

f. Facilitate public dissemination efforts to inform decision-makers on learning generated by the evaluation;

g. Oversee preparation of public-use data that ensures appropriate balance of enabling verification of analysis and broad use of the data with adherence to promises of confidentiality to survey respondents;

and

h. Determine the evaluation budgets.

2. GoM and country partners: GoM and country partners are responsible for building local ownership and commitment to the evaluation and quality control of evaluation activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

a. Set the evaluation questions to achieve accountability and learning objectives;

b. Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation;

c. Facilitate collaboration with relevant implementing entities and other stakeholders in Morocco;

d. Conduct quality reviews of all evaluation products (reports, questionnaires, etc); and

e. Facilitate public dissemination efforts.

C.5. Tasks

Independent Evaluator: The Independent Evaluator is responsible for the overall design, implementation, and dissemination of the evaluation, including the following specific responsibilities:

a. Develop the most rigorous evaluation design feasible given rules of program implementation (Tasks 1-2)

b. Support MCC and GoM to build buy-in and ownership of evaluation. (Task 2)

c. Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards (Task 3)

d. Ensure Institutional Review Board clearance of survey protocols (Task 4)

e. Manage the data collection firms (Task 4)

f. Ensure data quality during collection and entry through supervisions and management (Task 4)

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 14

g. Lead data cleaning, analysis, and interpretation of results (Task 5)

h. Produce high quality, credible, transparent evaluation reports (Task 5)

i. Lead preparation of public-use data that ensures appropriate balance of enabling verification of analysis and broad use of the data with adherence to promises of confidentiality to survey respondents (Task 6)

j. Lead public dissemination efforts (Task 6)

Task 1: Assess Evaluation Plan

• The Evaluator will be responsible for conducting an Evaluability Assessment on all existing documentation related to the program and proposed evaluation plan provided by MCC and GoM using the MCC Evaluability Assessment Tool (See Section J) as a guide. Given that the Evaluability Assessment will be conducted post compact, the Evaluator will be expected to adapt the Evaluability Assessment Tool prior to beginning work on the Evaluability Assessment Report.

• MCC, GoM, and the Evaluator should identify all MCC, GoM, and Agence du Partenariat pour le Progrès4 (APP) self-evaluation activities and previous independent evaluations, and determine how the independent evaluation will (i) validate findings of self-evaluation(s), (ii) use self-evaluation(s) to inform the independent evaluation, particularly around understanding what was designed, what was implemented, and understanding any necessary course corrections, (iii) complement the self-evaluation(s) by expanding on self-evaluation activities.

• The Evaluator shall produce an Evaluability Assessment Report that provides an independent assessment of the program being evaluated. This assessment should be guided by the Evaluability Assessment Tool and should assess the quality, completeness, and/or appropriateness of the Problem Diagnostic, Program Logic, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Risks & Assumptions, Monitoring Indicators, and Proposed Evaluation Questions. The report should aim to convey the Evaluator’s overarching assessment of the coherence of the program design, the underlying economic analysis, including cost-benefit and beneficiary analysis, and the M&E approach.

• The Evaluator shall develop a Work Plan with expected deadlines for deliverables. Any revisions to the Work Plan will be submitted in the Evaluator’s Progress Reports.

Task 2: Develop Evaluation Design Report

• The Evaluator shall conduct missions to the field as needed to discuss program design and implementation issues to inform the evaluation design, as well as engage local stakeholders (GoM and Implementing Entities, as well as local government) on the proposed evaluation. This includes hosting local stakeholder workshops to develop/refine research questions, assess appropriate and feasible quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies, develop evaluation timeline, and build local stakeholder commitment to the evaluation design.

• The Evaluator shall develop the Evaluation Design Report in both English and French, including all technical analysis required for assessing and confirming (as necessary) internal validity, power calculations, and required sample sizes. The Evaluation Design Report outline will be developed in consultation with the MCC M&E lead.

Please reference the Evaluation Design Report Outline (See Section J) as a guide.

• As per MCC’s Gender Policy and Gender Integration Guidelines, the Evaluator shall ensure that evaluation design, data collection requirements, and analysis address gender and other social differences as appropriate. This involves including research questions that address social and gender dimensions of the project logic, assumptions, and project design; disaggregating impacts by gender, age, income, and other social difference (e.g. ethnicity) as appropriate; including special modules or studies as needed.

• The Evaluator shall estimate the activities’ post-compact economic rates of return (ERR):

4 APP was the legal entity created by the GoM that was accountable for the implementation and oversight of the projects funded by the Morocco I Compact.

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 15 o In the Evaluation Design Report, the Evaluator shall specify which key input, output and outcome parameters modeled in the MCC cost-benefit analysis (CBA) will be measured as part of the proposed evaluation design. If the Evaluator believes it is infeasible or prohibitively expensive to measure a benefit stream in the MCC CBA, this should be made explicit and a justification provided for MCC to consider.

o The Evaluator should propose CBA methodologies to estimate the activities’ post-compact ERRs. The methodologies may be based on an existing MCC model or developed by the Evaluator. It should be documented in the EDR, citing sources where relevant. The Evaluator may recommend to MCC that it is not feasible or worthwhile to build CBA models of the activities. A justification for this recommendation should be provided in the EDR for MCC’s consideration.

• The Evaluator shall document feedback from local stakeholders and the response to that feedback in an annex to the final report. In order to obtain feedback, the Evaluator may lead local workshops and/or virtual reviews of the Design Report by MCA and Implementing Entities.

o In accordance with Section H, the Evaluator is responsible for allowing any key local stakeholders the opportunity to submit a public Statement of Difference or Support, as agreed with MCC and the MCA/designated representative.

• The Evaluator shall submit the Evaluation Design Report to MCC in both English and French and may be asked to present to the Evaluation Management Committee (See Section J). All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Evaluator in an annex to the final report.

o In accordance with Section H, MCC may: (i) select to obtain external peer review; and (ii) make the Report and peer reviews public on the MCC website.

• The Evaluator shall produce a Nesstar Metadata file (See Section J) summarizing the final Evaluation Design Report for dissemination on the MCC Evaluation Catalog. Prior to publication, the Evaluator should review the current version of MCC’s Evaluation Microdata Guidelines (See Section J) for guidance on preparation of public documentation that links to microdata to reduce re-identification risk.

• The Evaluator shall continue to maintain the Evaluation Design Report as the evaluation develops. The Evaluation Design Report will remain a living document that is updated by the Evaluator as necessary and resubmitted to MCC as necessary.

Task 3: Develop Evaluation Materials

• The Evaluator shall develop the data collection firm TORs and undertake the hiring of data collection firm.

• The Evaluator shall lead development of any necessary survey instruments for primary data collection (including questionnaires and accompanying enumerator manuals) or a data extraction approach for existing sources.

• The Evaluator shall develop survey materials in English, unless otherwise agreed with MCC. When necessary, the

Evaluator shall utilize existing instruments to improve coordination across MCC independent evaluations for meta-analysis. The Evaluator is responsible for pretesting5 survey instruments during their development and reviewing translations and back-translations conducted by data collection firms prior to data collection start (as necessary).

• The Evaluator is responsible for ensuring household surveys last no longer than 120 minutes without written consent from the Evaluation Management Committee.

• The Evaluator shall document feedback from local stakeholders and response to the feedback. In order to obtain feedback, the Evaluator may lead local workshops and/or virtual reviews of the Evaluation Materials by the GoM and Implementing Entities.

5 Note that MCC differentiates between the “pre-test”, defined as the testing of the instrument for content and flow, versus the “enumerator pilot”, an exercise completed during training for enumerators to practice with the instrument, and for the survey team to practice data flow, but NOT to result in major changes to the instrument.

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 16

• The Evaluator shall submit the Evaluation Materials to MCC and may be asked to present to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Evaluator.

o The Evaluator is responsible for the quality of the English and local language survey instruments.

Task 4: Undertake Endline Data Collection

• The Evaluator is responsible for developing and managing all data collection and entry protocols and implementation. This requires reviewing the current version of MCC’s Evaluation Microdata Guidelines (See Section J) and ensuring appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approval of research protocols, survey instruments, and informed consent procedures (see MCC Informed Consent Statement Template (See Section J)).

o In accordance with Section H, the Evaluator should assess the local IRB requirements and determine whether or not additional, international-level IRB approval is required in order to ensure adherence to international standards.

If there are local requirements, the Evaluator must abide by them.

If the local IRB is HHS registered, no additional IRB is required.

If the local IRB is not HHS registered, the Evaluator also needs to sub-contract an HHS registered

IRB.6

• The Evaluator is responsible for the training of data collection staff, field work, and data entry. This must be managed in coordination with MCC and the GoM.

• The Evaluator is responsible for conducting and documenting quality control checks of data as it is collected and entered in order to reduce data collection and entry error.

• The Evaluator is responsible for establishing a system for frequent communication with the data collection firm throughout data collection and entry, through email, phone, and site visits.

Task 5: Develop Final Report and Data Documentation Package

• The Evaluator shall review raw files from the survey firm and provide any critical feedback on production of the survey firm’s Data Collection Report.

• Before conducting analysis, the Evaluator shall review the current version of MCC’s Evaluation Microdata Guidelines (See Section J) for guidelines on management, documentation, and dissemination of the microdata.

• The Evaluator is responsible for developing the Final Report in both English and French, including an Evaluation Brief. The Final Report outline will be developed in consultation with the MCC M&E lead. Please reference Final Report Outline (See Section J) as a reference.

• The Evaluator shall ensure that the final analysis includes gender and social analysis as described in the evaluation design report (Task 2), including examining differences in characteristics by gender, age, income and other social variables as appropriate.

• The Evaluator should provide an explanation for why the Evaluator’s estimate of the ERRs differs from the MCC ERR estimates, if applicable. MCC’s Economic Analysis Division will provide the appropriate original CBA models for this comparison, where available.

• The evaluation results should be interpreted in relation to the CBA as part of the final report, and vice-versa.

• Note that all work done by the Evaluator in relation to the CBA is considered part of the independent evaluation and the same standards of independence apply. This work should be incorporated into the final report and undergo the review process (See Section J) as one final report package.

6 HHS registered IRBs are found here - https://ohrp.cit.nih.gov/search/search.aspx?styp=bsc

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 17

• The Evaluator shall document feedback from local stakeholders and response to feedback in an annex to the final report. In order to obtain feedback, the Evaluator may lead local workshops and/or virtual reviews of Final Report by MCA and Implementing Entities.

o In accordance with Section H, the Evaluator is responsible for allowing any key local stakeholders the opportunity to submit a public Statement of Difference or Support, as agreed with MCC and the MCA/designated representative.

• The Evaluator shall submit the Final Report to MCC in both English and French, including an Evaluation Brief, and present to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Evaluator in an annex to the final report. Any revisions to the report deemed necessary by the Evaluator shall be incorporated into the final draft.

o In accordance with Section H, MCC may: (i) select to obtain external peer review; and (ii) make the Report and peer reviews public on the MCC website

Task 6: Disseminate Final Results

• Once the final report is reviewed by the Evaluation Management Committee, the Evaluator is responsible for:

o Presentation at MCC headquarters o Presentation at MCA/designated representative headquarters

• The Evaluator should review the current version of MCC’s Evaluation Microdata Guidelines (See Section J) for guidance on preparation of public documentation that links to microdata. All endline materials (questionnaire(s), informed consents(s), research protocol(s), updated Metadata (as needed), internal and/or public-use Final Report, Data Package Worksheet (See Section J), public-use and/or restricted access microdata files and analysis code) should be submitted as a deliverable package.

• The Evaluator shall update the Nesstar Metadata as appropriate for the MCC Evaluation Catalog.

• The Evaluator shall also be responsible for reviewing any materials developed by MCC public relations for dissemination on the MCC website for quality assurance.

• Participation in other MCC-financed dissemination and training events, such as MCC M&E Forum and MCC

Evaluation Summits.

(End of SECTION C)

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 18

SECTION D – PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1. Disclaimer for Deliverables

The Contractor shall ensure that each report prepared by the Contractor and delivered under this Contract contains the following statement on the first or cover page of such report:

“The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of MCC or any other U.S. Government entity.”

(End of SECTION D)

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 19

SECTION E – INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

Inspection and acceptance shall be in accordance with the terms of FAR 52.212-4/Alternate I, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items. In addition, the following terms apply:

E.1. Inspection of Reports

MCC only accepts full submittals, not partial submittals; submittals must be in full accordance with the Contractor’s approved methodology and QA/QC plan. MCC’s Evaluation Management Committee (EMC) guides the design of the evaluation and reviews deliverables at key checkpoints. The Contractor must take the EMC review process into consideration when developing their work plan. See Section J for an explanation of MCC’s EMC review process.

E.2. Quality Control Plan

The contractor shall have in place and maintain a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QA/QC) that covers, as a minimum, how the contractor intends to meet the requirements of all performance objectives, monitor and proactively manage contract requirements. It shall also include the mechanism by which MCC will be notified of performance-related incidents that are likely to affect quality of service.

(End of SECTION E)

95332418Q0133 (Morocco I Small-Scale Fisheries Evaluation) Page 20

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1. Period of Performance

The overall anticipated period of performance of this contract is as follows:

Base Period: September 2018 – September 2019 Option Period 1: September 2019 – September 2020 Option Period 2: September 2020 – September 2021

While the Contract will be awarded for the Base and Option Periods, the exercise of the option periods is at the sole discretion of MCC. Offerors are expected to propose a period of evaluation that they believe to be reflective of the theory of change and, thus, may propose a different anticipated period of performance. However, any proposed change in the anticipated period of performance should be clearly justified as part of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

F.2. Place of Performance

Generally, the Contractor shall perform services in Morocco or at…