95332418Q0136_(Niger_PRAPS_Evaluation)_-_2018-07-30.docx

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

95332418Q0136 07/30/2018 Albert Whitley 202-772-6403 08/27/2018/2:00pm ET

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700, Attn: Albert Whitley, 202-772-6403 Washington DC 20005 X

N/A

Millennium Challenge Corporation

CGM

1099 Fourteenth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington DC 20005

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

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 Niger PRAPS (Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project) Activity.

See enclosed solicitation and all attachments for pertinent details

Jacqueline H. Naranjo

Table of Contents

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. Price/Cost Schedule

Price Amount

FIRM-FIXED PRICE (FFP) – Tasks 1 & 2 (see Section F.3.3 for milestone payments) Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 8 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

TIME & MATERIALS (T&M)

Period of Performance: TBD Estimated 12 months PoP Start: TBD PoP End: TBD

B.2. FAR 52.216-1 -- Type of Contract (APR 1984) The Government contemplates award of a hybrid type contract resulting from this solicitation, with the Base Period being firm-fixed price (FFP) and the option periods being time-and-materials (T&M).

(End of Provision) B.3. Accounting and Appropriation Data

[RESERVED]

B.4. Funding Type The base period of this contract will be funded, at the time of award, with 609(g) funding. The option periods will be funded with no-year Due Diligence funds if/when the individual option periods are exercised. Due Diligence funding obligated to this contract may be used over 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 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

Total Labor Hours

PRICING SUMMARY PER CONTRACT PERIOD

Total Labor Hours

Base Period – Period of Performance TBD (est. 8 months)

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Firm-Fixed Price (Base Period)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period I)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period II)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period III)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period IV)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period V)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period VI)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period VII)

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

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period VIII)

TOTAL COST SUMMARY

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Cost

NOTE (1): MCC anticipates approximately $1,112,724.00 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 periods 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 Subcontract(s),” as used in the tables above, refers only to the direct cost of subcontracting a data collection firm. It does not include any associated indirect costs (e.g., subcontract handling fees) or 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.

B.7. Optional Tasks and Basis of Estimate The following tasks are listed as Optional: Task 4, Undertake baseline data collection; Task 8, Revise Interim Evaluation Material; Task 9, Undertake Interim data collection; Task 10, Develop Interim Report and Data Documentation Package; and Task 11, Disseminate Interim Results.

Please provide the following for each of the optional tasks: 1) a price estimate, 2) the identification of which option period those tasks are expected to be performed under, and 3) the price breakdown for that individual task (i.e., proposed labor and ODCs for each task).

The determination of whether optional tasks will be pursued will be made at the time option periods are exercised. The price of the option period exercised will include only those optional tasks selected.

(End of SECTION B)

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a U.S. Government corporation whose mission is to provide assistance that will support economic growth and poverty reduction in carefully selected countries that demonstrate a commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizenry. For more information on the MCC, please visit www.mcc.gov. The MCC’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Policy can accessed here: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/policy-for-monitoring-and-evaluation.

The MCC model is centered around four core principles: good governance, country ownership, a focus on results, and transparency. MCC Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) has two objectives, stemming from the MCC core principles: Accountability, which refers to MCC’s obligation to report on activities and attributable outcomes, accept responsibility for them, and disclose these findings in a public and transparent manner and Learning, which refers to MCC’s efforts to better understand the causal links between its interventions and changes in poverty and income.[footnoteRef:2] [2: The MCC’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Policy can be accessed here: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/policy-for-monitoring-and-evaluation]

C.1. Scope Provide Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Niger PRAPS Activity.

The independent evaluation is expected to assess the entire Activity and its five activities. The evaluation is expected to cover the interaction of Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC’s) funded three components and the two remaining covered by the World Bank, as well the interaction of the Activity as a whole with Climate-Resilient Agriculture (CRA) and other Compact. Additionally, this contract will assess how the various components of PRAPS contribute to Climate-Resilient Communities (CRC) outcomes in the intervention areas (per the evaluation questions). Since the CRA Activity will have separate benefit streams and intervention strategies, it is expected that a second evaluation contract will cover the CRA Activity and its expected outcomes.

C.2. Introduction and Background The Government of Niger and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, on behalf of the United States Government, signed a Compact Agreement for a US $437 million grant on July 29, 2016. The 5-year Compact entered into force in January 2018 and ends in January 2023.A Millennium Challenge Account entity, Millennium Challenge Account-Niger (“MCA-Niger” or “MCA”), will implement the Compact program. MCA-Niger has been established as a legal entity in Niger and governed by a public-private Board of Directors accountable to the President of the Republic of Niger. The Compact consists of two projects: the Irrigation and Market Access Project and the CRC. The below program logic outlines the anticipated logic and theory of change for the Niger Compact.

The CRC Project – including both the CRA Activity and the Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project (PRAPS) Activity – which will be implemented in coordination with the World Bank, is focused on increasing incomes for small-scale agricultural- and livestock-dependent families in Eligible Communes and Livestock Corridors in rural Niger by improving crop and livestock productivity, promoting sustainable management of natural resources critical to production, supporting growth of agricultural enterprises, and increasing market sales of targeted commodities.

Jointly with the CRA Activity, PRAPS is expected to yield an estimated Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of 14% over the lifetime of the investment (about 20 years from the Compact’s entry into force). The number of PRAPS beneficiaries is a function of the proportion of animals in the endemic areas and the projected vaccination coverage in those areas within the MCC intervention zones. The animal count for the health component suggests that about 426,804 households will benefit. In terms of individual beneficiaries this would represent about 3,414,436 people. A portion of these people will also benefit from Livestock Corridor improvements and market infrastructure under the PRAPS Activity. Note that there are ERR and beneficiary analysis updates being made, and the current estimate may evolve upon completion of such revisions.

The subject of this statement of work is the PRAPS Activity. The Irrigation and Market Access Project and the CRA Activity are (or will be) evaluated through separate contracts. The PRAPS Activity is expected to increase pastoralists’ incomes by improving animal health and improving infrastructure to ensure animal growth and value at time of sale. The Activity is a World Bank-designed program that will be implemented at the national level in seven corridors/regions (Agadez, Diffa, Dosso, Maradi, Tahoua, Tillaberi, and Zinder), and at a regional level alongside five other countries, including Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal and Chad. It consists of five components (Animal Health, Natural Resource Management Enhancement, Market Access Facilitation, Pastoral Crisis Management, Project Management and Institutional Support). MCC will be funding and implementing all but two components (Pastoralist Crisis Management and Project Management and Institutional Support), in four (Dosso, Maradi, Tahoua and Tillaberi) out of the seven regions, while the World Bank will fund and implement all five components in the remaining three regions and the two remaining components in the four MCC regions.

MCC and World Bank areas of interventions: The PRAPS Activity is a joint initiative between MCC and the World Bank. While the World Bank’s intervention will cover all five parts of the Activity in 7 regions/corridors, MCC’s investment will solely focus on three: Animal Health component (national campaign), Natural Resource Management Enhancement, and Market Access Facilitation in 4 corridors. As shown in the above Program Logic, all five components, nevertheless, will jointly contribute to the project’s long-term objectives, including increased livestock production and productivity, and increased products available on local and regional markets. In terms of geographical coverage, the World Bank will work in all seven regions across the country (Agadez, Diffa, Dosso, Maradi, Tahoua, Tillaberi, and Zinder). However, MCC will only intervene in four: Dosso, Maradi, Tahoua and Tillaberi. In the 4 MCC regions, the World Bank will only cover the two non-MCC components (Project Management and Institutional Support, and Pastoral Crisis Management).

The five components are: Animal Health (AH), Natural Resource Management Enhancement (NRME), Market Access Facilitation (MAF), Pastoral Crisis Management (PCM), Project Management and Institutional Support (PMIS).

1. Animal Health (AH): The AH sub-activity is a livestock health and vaccination campaign that aims to reduce disease prevalence that debilitates livestock productivity by building a more sustainable and efficient national veterinary services to conduct surveillance and control campaigns for major diseases affecting large and small ruminants following World Organization for Animal Health (Oficina Internacional de Epizootias - “OIE”) guidelines, with a focus on remote pastoral areas. In the short term, the goal of these efforts is to increase the share of animals vaccinated against two contagious respiratory diseases: contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (“CBPP”) and peste des petits ruminants (small ruminant plague - “PPR”), and to rehabilitate or establish new private veterinary units (Services Vétérinaires Privés de Proximité– SVPP) in the trade corridors, including an increase in inspection services at key border crossings to monitor disease prevalence. MCC expects to increase bovine vaccination from its current coverage rate of 52% to an 80% coverage rate and that for small ruminants from 40% coverage rate to 80%. In the intermediate term, the goal of these efforts is to decrease the herd prevalence of CBPP and to increase the immunity protection of small ruminants against PPR. To that end, the intervention will consist of: (a) Upgrading of animal health infrastructure (such as Support to Private Veterinary Services of Proximity – SVPP) and strengthening of National Veterinary Services (NVS) capacities in Niger; and (b) Support for the surveillance and control of priority animal diseases and veterinary medicines in Niger.

2. Natural Resource Management Enhancement (NRME): The goals of this sub-activity are to: (a) Improve access to natural resources and sustainable rangeland management in the targeted corridors; (b) Ensure sustainable management of water access infrastructure. More specifically, the NRME sub-activity aims to: (1) increase access to water points and livestock pasture and rest areas along livestock corridors to help maintain the condition of animals as pastoralists lead them through such corridors to points of sale: (2) generate savings in animal feed by improving access to pasture lands, and (3) improve demarcation of livestock corridors and land tenure security throughout the intersection zones and better management and reduction in land conflicts. Consultations will engage stakeholders in a comprehensive process to identify, by corridor or commune, which Eligible Investments will be prioritized by each Livestock Corridor. Eligible Investments include upgrades to key water points and livestock pasture and rest areas along Livestock Corridors to help maintain animals in good condition as pastoralists lead them through such corridors to points of sale (such as markets).

3. Market Access Facilitation (MAF): This sub-activity aims to foster broad-based poverty reduction and improve the resilience of pastoralist households by ensuring access to competitive, inclusive markets for ruminant livestock and dairy products. The intervention funds the modernization of existing dilapidated markets, and/or the construction of new markets for livestock and related products to foster an improved livestock trade environment. Through a consultative process with livestock stakeholders, an inventory of current market infrastructure and livestock trade flows will be undertaken and priorities established for the location and design of infrastructure improvements needed to ease market participation. The intervention will: (a) Provide support to market infrastructure and information systems; and (b) Provide support to producer and inter-professional organizations and trade facilitation.

4. Pastoral Crisis Management (PCM): This component is intended to improve crisis preparedness, prevention, and response at the national and regional levels. In the medium term, this sub-activity will achieve a reduction in the time required during a pastoral crisis to reach 50 percent of the targeted beneficiaries (identified in a previously developed crisis intervention plan that specifically includes pastoralists). To that end, the intervention will: (a) Ensure pastoral crisis preparedness and livelihood diversification; and (b) Ensure contingency emergency response. Note that MCC is not providing funding for this 4th component.

5. Project Management and Institutional Support (PMIS): This component aims to improve project management capacities. It focuses on all aspects of project management, including fiduciary management, monitoring and evaluation, knowledge generation and management, communication, and monitoring mitigation measures related to safeguards. This component also supports critical needs for institutional support, capacity building, and training identified in the country and at Comité Inter-Etate pour la Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel (CILSS) (French: Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel). Note that MCC is not providing funding for this 5th component.

Per the ERR calculated by MCC, the PRAPS economic rationale was as follows:

The Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Activity is expected to increase pastoralists’ incomes by improving animal health and improving infrastructure to support animal growth. To improve animal health, the project will undertake vaccination activities against the contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) and small ruminant plague (peste des petits ruminants, PPR). Vaccination is expected to reduce disease incidence for both CBPP and PPR. Pastoralists income is expected to increase through avoided losses caused by the mortality and morbidity related to these diseases. Other activities, such as rehabilitation and upgrading of the transhumance livestock corridors, will increase income by promoting better animal health and growth and by allowing pastoralists to save on animal feed purchase through access to improved water points, pasture, and market infrastructure C.3. Evaluation Questions and Guidance on Methodology Through a Performance Evaluation, the Independent Evaluation will document the extent to which the PRAPS Activity was implemented according to design and whether or not it achieved its expected results included in the program logic. The Evaluation will assess the outcomes and impacts of the three components that will benefit from MCC funding: Animal Health, Natural Resource Management Enhancement, and Market Access Facilitation, as well as outcomes and impacts of the joint investments from MCC and the World Bank.

The PRAPS Evaluation will assess the extent to which the Activity has met its desired objectives; that is, increased quantities of Niger’s pastoral products sold at higher prices. Though parts of the Activity are already underway, detailed final designs are not yet completed for this Activity. Therefore, it shall be understood that the details of the components will be clarified as the Niger Compact enters into implementation (estimated to enter implementation in early 2018). The Evaluator will be responsible for maintaining contact with MCC and MCA-Niger and project implementers to ensure that the evaluation design will take these changes into account.

Additionally, to the extent possible, the Independent Evaluator will use an Impact Evaluation specifically on the Market Facilitation Component, to assess the extent to which PRAPS activities affect the participating markets compared to others.

While keeping their independence, the evaluator shall work closely with the implementation team to ensure that there is a constant information loop between the evaluation findings, potential design modifications and adjustments, and program implementation. The evaluation team shall, however, abstain from directly or indirectly suggesting modifications of existing designs.

Tentative research questions for this evaluation are included below. The Evaluator is expected to work with MCC, MCA-Niger, and other stakeholders to finalize the list of research questions. The final list of research questions shall be included in the evaluation design report.

Implementation

1. Was the Activity implemented as designed? If not, what changes occurred to the original design during implementation and why?

Outcomes

(1) PRAPS zones and CRA zones overlap in some regions. How and to what extent do those overlaps effect each activity’s outcomes?

(2) Were the expected short, medium, and long-term results in the program logic realized? For example:

a. Did animal health improve? How? Was there a reduction in disease prevalence? Was there a reduction in mortality or morbidity of animals linked to the CBPP and PPR? Was there on average a tangible increase in weight of bovines and small ruminants for animals that have improved access to the available water points and improved access to pasture lands?

b. ( i) Are there more pasture lands available for animals to graze? (ii) Have communities experienced a decrease in land related conflicts in particular between agriculture and livestock producers?

c. To what extent are communes managing and maintaining water access infrastructure (wells/boreholes). Have communes adopted sustainable management of water access points (i.e. monitoring of wells and water quality) and improved management of pasture lands/pasture areas?

d. (i) Was there an increase in buyers and sellers of livestock? (ii) Was there a net increase in sales of livestock or related products? (iii) Was there any shift of sales from nearby markets that did not get modernized? Did the markets result in any increased incomes for the herders? For the buyers? For the intermediaries? How did the distribution get affected?

e. Were new sellers allowed in the markets? Were power dynamics and transparency of transactions changed (between herders, traders, sellers)?

f. Did the markets offer herders more of the expected services such as veterinary services, animal feed, watering points, and scales, better pricing and market information? Did herders use these services (i.e. did they buy animal feed or animal medicine while in the market)?

g. Did tax revenue collection from livestock sales increased in communes with upgraded markets? Have receipts, controlled access, and exit points decrease reports of animals being lost/stolen?

h. What improvements did herders experience in the pasturelands as a result of the program? Did competition increase for livestock and dairy products? If so what effect did this competition have in the income of herders and rural households?

i. Were there any efficiency gains in trade/transactions, price increases/changes? How were these benefits distributed (between buyers, sellers, and traders)?

j. To what extent did livestock production and productivity increase?

k. Were more livestock products available on local and regional markets?

l. Were greater quantities of pastoral products sold at higher prices?

m. Did milk collection centers result in better prices for milk? Did they resulted in higher volumes of milk being traded in communities that received infrastructure? Was quality of milk better maintained and monitored? To what extent did the milk collection centers contribute to improve standards of dairy products? To what extent did the milk collection centers reach targeted population, in particular women that produce dairy products or dairy products in small scale within the zone being evaluated?

(3) What facilitated achievement of the results, if they were achieved? If results were not achieved, why not?

a. Did the assumptions in the program logic hold?

b. How and to what extent did factors outside the compact (such as droughts, locust attacks, additional third-party interventions and investments, alignment with other five regional PRAPS members, etc.), influence the ability of the project to meet its expected outcomes?

c. How did the two components not covered by MCC (funded by the World Bank) contribute to achieving the results?

(4) If possible to identify through the analysis, what is the differentiated impact between different components (for instance, the impact of vaccination vs. the impact of transhumance corridors vs. the impact of market construction)? Which components had the greatest impact on the outcomes? And why?

(5) Did new or upgraded/modernized markets lead to improved tax collection for communes and local administrations?

(6) Based on the findings from the evaluation, what is the estimated Economic Rate of Return (ERR) for MCC’s investments in the PRAPS Activity in Niger?

Sustainability and Lessons

(1) How sustainable are the results achieved through PRAPS?

a. To what extent are MCC’s maintenance expectations for the new infrastructure works being met?

b. What are the measures introduced or taken by the communes to ensure sustainability of the investments? How is that being paid for?

(2) What lessons can be drawn from the PRAPS Activity to inform future projects and activities?

The below program logic outlines the anticipated logic and theory of change for the PRAPS Activity.

Key Assumptions include:

· The vaccinations will reach enough animals within the national herd to significantly reduce prevalence of two targeted diseases linked to animal mortality and morbidity;

· Training of herders and the emergency response system are completed by the Government and the World Bank in a timely manner;

· Herders will apply improved natural resource management knowledge to reduce overgrazing and reclaim grazing areas;

· Animals will maintain health and weight if they have access to water points and rest areas;

· Herders will invest in animal fattening and obtain better prices for their animals at modernized and organized markets;

· More women will participate in organized markets;

· The land tenure interventions will reduce the risk of conflict over access to improved land and natural resources;

· Modern and organized market platforms will attract more livestock sellers and buyers will create increased volume of sales and competitive prices for pastoralists;

· The PRAPS Activity is supported by the World Organization of Animal Health to build proper capacities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock’s Department of Veterinary Services to effectively reduce and monitor prevalence and avoid outbreaks of livestock diseases;

· The infrastructures will be maintained, and herders and livestock owners have the resources to invest in their cattle; and

· The government will sustain and maintain the vaccinations rates beyond the intervention period.

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 responsibility 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.

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 Evaluation Management Committee (EMC).

B. MCC & MCA Responsibilities: The MCC, MCA, along with the Independent Evaluator, play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating the independent evaluations. The MCC and MCA roles are as follows (For further detail 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. Assess when a program is ready for evaluation planning through evaluability assessment;

b. Determine what components of the PRAPS Activity will be covered by the evaluation;

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

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

e. Contract and Supervise the Independent Evaluator;

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

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

h. 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

i. Determine the evaluation budgets.

2. Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and country partners: MCA and country partners are responsible for building local ownership and commitment to the evaluation, oversight of the data collection firm, and quality control of evaluation activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

a. Assess when a program is ready for evaluation planning through evaluability assessment;

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

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

d. Manage the data collection firms during the Compact unless Optional Task 4 and/or 9 are exercised;

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

f. Facilitate public dissemination efforts.

This evaluation contract is expected to cover about four of the five years of the Compact and approximately four years after the Compact. During the Compact, an accountable entity called MCA-Niger, established by the Government of Niger, will manage the Compact. After the Compact, the Government of Niger is expected to appoint a point of contact who will continue to fulfill the Government’s responsibilities as they relate to post compact evaluation.

C.5. Tasks Independent Evaluator: The Independent Evaluator shall be 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 MCA to build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation. (Task 2, Task 7 and Task 11)

c. Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards (Task 3, Task 8 and Task 12)

d. Ensure Institutional Review Board clearance of survey protocols (Task 4, Task 9 and Task 13)

e. Manage the data collection firms (Post-Compact) (Task 4, Task 9 and Task 13)

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

g. Lead data cleaning, analysis, and interpretation of results (Task 5, Task 10 and Task 14)

h. Produce high quality, credible, transparent evaluation reports (Task 5, Task 10 and Task 14)

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, Task 11 and Task 15)

j. Lead public dissemination efforts (Task 15) Task 1: Assess Evaluation Plan

· The Evaluator shall be responsible for conducting an Evaluability Assessment on all existing documentation related to the program and proposed evaluation plan provided by MCC and MCA using the MCC Evaluability Assessment Tool (See Section J.4) as a guide.

· MCC and the Evaluator should work together to identify all MCC and MCA self-evaluation activities 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, and the M&E approach.

· 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 (MCA 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, including all technical analysis required for assessing and confirming (as necessary) internal validity, power calculations, and required sample sizes. The Evaluation Design Report outline shall be developed in consultation with the MCC M&E lead. Please reference the Evaluation Design Report Outline (See Section J.5) as a guide.

· 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 project’s post-compact economic rate of return (ERR):

· In the Evaluation Design Report, the Evaluator will 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.

· The Evaluator should propose a CBA methodology to estimate the project’s post-compact ERR. The methodology 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 a CBA model of the project. 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.

· 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 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.

· 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.8) 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.8) 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 shall 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 scope(s) of Work (SOW) for baseline data collection and MCA-Niger will procure the data collection firm(s) unless Optional Task 4 is exercised.

· 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 and ensure appropriate translation into French. When necessary, the Evaluator shall utilize existing instruments to improve coordination across MCC independent evaluations for meta-analysis. The Evaluator is responsible for pretesting[footnoteRef:3] survey instruments during their development and reviewing translations and back-translations conducted by data collection firms prior to data collection start (as necessary).