Solicitation_Amendment_95332419Q0076_0001_-_Niger_CRA.pdf

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Jacqueline H. Naranjo, Contracting Officer

The purpose of this amendment is to: 1) provide responses to vendor questions; 2) replace the "Pricing Summary per Contract Period" table on page 7 of the RFQ as reflected in Attachment A to this amendment; and 3) extend the quote submission response date. Quotations are now due by Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:00AM ET.

Millennium Challenge Corporation 1099 Fourteenth St NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005-3550

95332419Q0076

PAGE OF PAGES

1 3

08/14/2019

07/22/2019

Questions MCC Response

Can MCC confirm that the timelines on page 18 and page 19 are still current? Does MCC have any update on the expected signing date for Round 1 grants?

Although there have been some shifts in the timeline, the overall dates have remained largely unaffected. The first grant agreements are expected to be signed in August 2019, with all Round 1 grants to be signed by December 2019. However, the RFA for the second round of grants is now expected to launch in November 2019, not March 2020.

In the table on page 22, should the CRA Grants under the Eligible Applicant Category be “3” instead of “6”?

Yes, the number of Eligible Applicant categories for the CRA Grants window is 3.

Does the table on page 22 imply that the evaluator should, as available, sample at least one of each applicant type within each of the project categories (suggesting approximately 15 grants), rather than at least one from each applicant type and one from each project category (which could be achieved with as few as 5 grants, if one grant is used for both applicant type and project type sampling)?

The final determination on the number of grants the analysis will cover and the selection process for the specific grants to be evaluated will be made during the Evaluation Design Report phase. The evaluator should anticipate evaluating a minimum of 15 grants, including at least one grant from each project category and at least one grant from each eligible applicant category.

Please note that the total number of grants to be evaluated is expected to be greater than the minimum necessary to fulfill the Project and Eligible Applicant categories requirements.

The “Evaluation Questions” section on page 23 of the RFQ states:

a. “All questions labeled as Optional shall only be incorporated in the evaluation design if the Optional Tasks. Task 16 (Update Plan and Evaluation Design Report to include ICRIPs Sub-Activity) through Task 21.”

i. Would MCC kindly provide the missing language from these two sentences?

b. “When preparing proposals, the base proposal should only consider the questions related to the Facility Sub-Activity.”

i. Can MCC clarify if this indicates that proposals should not include a design related to the ICRIPs sub-activity or a design for medium and long-term CRA Activity outcomes?

a. The referenced statement on page 23 is hereby replaced as follows: "All questions labeled as Optional shall only be incorporated in the evaluation design if Optional Task 16 (Update Plan and Evaluation Design Report to include ICRIPs Sub-Activity) is executed."

b. The proposals should include two separate designs, one for the Facility Sub- Activity and one for the ICRIPs Sub-Activity. The first design should seek to evaluate all questions related to the Facility Sub-Activity and the medium-and long-term CRA Activity outcomes, to the extent that they can be answered for the Facility Sub-Activity exclusively. The second design should seek to evaluate all questions related to the ICRIPs Sub-Activity and the medium- and long-term CRA Activity outcomes, as they relate to both sub-activities.

Under Section C.4 (page 23) the title "CRA Activity (Required for Facility Sub- Activity, Optional for ICRIPs Sub-Activity)" hereby replaces "CRA Activity (Optional Questions)."

Staffing: Is MCC open to considering personnel who are not professionally proficient in French travelling for portions of fieldwork if interpretation is provided?

The ability to operate fluidly in the professional setting in Niger requires a certain degree of French fluency or the use of costly interpretation services.

Professional interactions includes both in-country work, as well as the review of key deliverables provided in French. Given this context, it is the offeror’s responsibility to demonstrate their ability to successfully complete all tasks identified in the contract at the highest quality.

Could MCC clarify if offerors should propose an evaluation design strategy for the optional evaluation elements also at the proposal stage (e.g. ICRIP activity)?

Please see the response to Question 4. The proposals should include two separate designs, one for the Facility Sub-Activity, and one for if the optional tasks related to the ICRIPs Sub-Activity are executed.

Per Section C, MCC suggests that the baseline might occur in 2020. The first round of CRA grants are expected to be signed September/October 2019. Does MCC anticipate that these grants will initiate activities only after the baseline is complete? If not, does MCC expect the impact evaluation to focus on the Round 2 grants?

The Round 1 grant agreements will be signed between August and December 2019 and implementation of these grants will proceed shortly thereafter. The independent evaluator is responsible for proposing the evaluation design for this contract and factors, such as timing, should contribute to the offeror's design proposal.

Does MCC expect that the CRA grant applications and PSP Concept Notes will include information on the specific geographic area of operations, the expected number of households impacted, and expected impact?

As part of the application process, grantees will be required to provide the geographic location (to the village level) of the anticipated works, the anticipated benefits, such as the expected number of persons with improved income and the anticipated increase in sales revenue.

95332419Q0076 - Questions and Answers

The budget tables included in Section B.4 only include a summary or subtotal costs for tasks that are optional. Would MCC like to have a total for non-optional tasks and for optional tasks?

Yes. In the budget tables for Option Periods II, III and IV (i.e., the periods with optional tasks), the offeror should include summary and sub-total costs for the non-optional tasks as well as the optional tasks. In other words, each table should include a "Non-Optional Tasks Labor Sub-Total," a "Non- Optional Tasks ODC Sub-Total," and a "Non-Optional Tasks Total Estimated Value." The templates already include these totals for the optional tasks; the non-optional tasks should be added by the offeror.

In addition, please see Attachment A to this amendment for an update to the "Pricing Summary per Contract Period" table on page 7. The updated table in Attachment A replaces the "Pricing Summary per Contract Period" table on page 7.

In section B.5 the RFQ lists 10 tasks that are considered optional, and MCC has requested that the offeror include these optional tasks in the budget. If these tasks are budgeted completely independently, economies of scales will be reduced, thereby potentially increasing the cost. For example, if task 19 (supervise endline data collection for ICRIPs sub-activity) were included as part of data collection for evaluation of the Grants Facility sub-activity, the cost of the task would be the incremental cost of supervising data collection for the ICRIPs sub-activity. However, if MCC requires us to budget task 19 independently, we would budget the full cost of conducting this data collection (independent of any related data collection). To ensure that all offerors make the same assumptions related to budgeting the optional tasks, could MCC provide further guidance on how these tasks should be budgeted?

Please assume that Optional Tasks 18-21, if executed, will be completed in coordination with Tasks 12-15 of the contract. For example, Task 19 should take place at the same time as Task 13. Therefore, the budget for the optional tasks should equal the incremental cost of incorporating the ICRIPs Sub- Activity in the analysis.

Page 18 of the RFQ states that for the CRA grants window “At least one project from each of the three (3) Eligible Applicant categories and each of the five (5) potential project categories that receive funding shall be evaluated.” However, the Facility Sub-Activity Evaluation table on page 22 notes that the CRA grants window has six eligible applicant categories and that a minimum of 15 grants shall be evaluated. Can you confirm the number of CRA grants expected to be evaluated under this evaluation?

There are 3 eligible applicant categories for the CRA Grants window ((i)Cooperatives and producer / processor groups; (ii) women or youth groups; and (iii) micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises). A minimum of 15 grants are expected to be evaluated for the CRA Grants window, although the determination of the final number of grants will be made during the Evaluation Design Report phase.