Amendment01wordcopy-MCC-10-0011.doc

SF30 Continuation of Block Narrative

Attn: Dorothy D. McKelvin 202/521-3731

9B. Date (See Item 11)

10/30/2009

10A. Modification of Contract/Order No.

10B. Date (See Item 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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:

submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDG-

MENT 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)

N/A

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

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

Set fourth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103 (b)

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

14. Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide responses to the questions received by the November 16, 2009 due date. The deadline for submission of proposals remains unchanged, December 16, 2009 by 2:00 p.m. EST.

Question #1. MCC attempts to distinguish between Category 1 and Category 2 Impact Evaluations. However based on the definitions provided and the illustrative schedule of evaluations (Attachment 4 of the RFP) we are unclear about how Category 1 and 2 evaluations are different both in design and in their intended use. Could MCC please clarify? It would be useful if MCC could:

a. Give examples of programs where the evaluation design would be classified as Category 1 and others where it would be classified as Category 2 and explain – with concrete examples the basis for the classification

Response: Category 1 and 2 distinctions are clarified in the enclosed Amendment to Section C. Consistent with these distinctions, Category 1 evaluations are designed prior to implementation and explicitly account for a formal counterfactual in evaluation design; Category 2 evaluations will be designed after the program started. Most Category 2 evaluations will be based on baseline data drawn from surveys that were not explicitly designed to measure impacts; some may have no useful baseline data.

b. Clarify if all Category 2 evaluations are commissioned late in the project cycle where no baseline data was collected. i. Could there be scenarios where the evaluation is commissioned at the start of the project but where a statistical counterfactual cannot be used at the start of the project [this opens up a wider range of Category 2 design options]?

Response: Current MCC Compacts and Threshold projects include activities without a Category 1 evaluation that will need a Category 2 evaluation that is commissioned late in the project cycle.

c. There are likely to be cases where a project has several objectives, some of which can be evaluated using RCTs and strong QEDs but where statistically weaker designs may be required to assess other objectives. Would these overlapping evaluations be considered as Category 1, 2 or both?

Response: It is important to note that all MCC Compact activities share the same primary objective of raising local incomes for households and/or firms. In most cases, other potential effects of MCC-funded activities would be seen as channels through which this primary impact is achieved, and evaluations of both categories would be expected to help understand the channels through which investments lead to impact. But some Compact activities have other secondary objectives, and most Thresholds have multiple objectives. Any evaluations that are designed after activity commencement should be considered as Category 2 evaluations.

Question #2. Related to Question 1 above, Attachment 4 uses the terms “Post Compact Evaluations” and “New Compact Evaluations.” Can MCC clarify what these classifications mean in terms of purpose, scope and methodology for these two different kinds of evaluations and how the two are related?

Response: See the response to 1.b above.

Question #3. There is a continuum ranging from strong statistical designs such as RCTs and QEDs with statistical matching of the project and comparison groups, through somewhat weaker QEDs (using judgmental matching or where the evaluation is based on an econometric ex-post comparison with assumption about how to treat unobservables), weaker QEDs but that still use a comparison group and finally non-experimental designs. Different evaluators use different cut-off points for defining what is, and is not considered an acceptable counterfactual. Where and how will MCC define the cut-off point for an acceptable counterfactual design? What does MCC consider to be the essential elements of a satisfactory statistical counterfactual design?

Response: In all of these evaluations, MCC will look for the best feasible evaluation, which will depend on a number of factors, including level of rigor, cost, and difficulty of integrating into program implementation. It is the infeasibility of the fully experimental evaluations that necessitates the quasi-experimental methods, and the infeasibility of the quasi-experimental methods that necessitates less rigorous designs.

Question #4. MCC recognizes that RCT’s and statistically strong QEDs are the most powerful designs to control for the main kinds of selection bias. These methods provide an unbiased estimate of the average magnitude of project impact over the whole of the population coverage by a project.

a. They do not assess the distribution of benefits across the total population and normally they cannot identify sectors of the target population that are excluded or that receive fewer benefits. For example, many projects may be less effective at ensuring the participation of ethnic minorities, the landless, the internally displaced or other vulnerable groups.

However, when used in isolation there are a number of important questions that these designs do not address: b. RCTs and most QEDs assume that the project was implemented as designed, and that the same quality and volume of services were provided to all sectors of the population. Many statistical designs do not test these assumptions, and as very few projects are implemented exactly as designed, there is a danger that the actual project is significantly different from what is assumed in the analysis.

c. Most statistical designs do not assess the influence of contextual factors: such as variations in the local economy, the local political context, institutional arrangements (in one project the local partner agencies may cooperate very effectively whereas in another they do not), and differences in the socio-economic characteristics of the population in each project location. However, these contextual factors can sometimes explain a significant proportion of the variations in project outcomes.

All of these factors can be addressed by combining the RCT or QED with mixed-method designs that base the evaluation on a program theory model and that include contextual analysis, process analysis and participatory techniques to obtain the perspectives of beneficiaries and other local stakeholders.

However, the use of these broader mixed-method approaches will significantly increase the cost and time-inputs of the evaluation. While experience shows that MCC gives great weight to proposals that address all of the sample design and econometric issues of the statistical designs (power analysis etc), it is not clear how much importance is given to broadening the design to address the potential limitations of the statistical designs.

At the IDIQ and Task Order levels how open is MCC to accepting strong evaluation designs (RCTs/QED) combined with other kinds of mixed evaluation methods to address the limitations of purely statistical designs? If MCC is serious about such mixed method approaches does it intend to: a) request them in its Requests for Task Order Proposals, and b) redo its preliminary level of effort and cost analyses to reflect these the added costs involved?

Response: MCC’s impact evaluations are expected to include a careful, well-informed analysis of the project interventions, including an assessment of how the project they are evaluating was actually implemented, based on any mixture of analytic methods that are appropriate for the task. This analysis should be based initially on MCA’s and the project managers’ monitoring and process evaluation information and analyses. The IE firm should also work with the MCA to determine whether any potentially important monitoring or process evaluation information, or any other qualitative or quantitative information still needs to be gathered. If it does, the IE firm should consult with the Project Monitor to determine if and how the additional information should be collected.

Firms may comment on the SOW they are responding to. But unless the solicitation’s SOW is explicitly modified, the primary and secondary questions addressed in the Request for Task Orders will define the essential questions that the IE firm shall respond to. These questions will generally identify the outcomes to be measured and any sub-populations of special interest. In some, but not all projects, these will also include a broader set of questions that seek broadly generalizeable, or externally valid, findings.

Question #5. Like MCC many international donors are concerned with discerning the impact of their programs and learning lessons about sustainability of program results, institutional impact of interventions and operational lessons learned for improving efficiency and effectiveness of future programs. These kinds of evaluations generally require mixed methods approaches. We are not clear from reading the RFP whether MCC intends to focus on any issues other than evaluating compact impact in this contract. Does MCC plan to address some of these evaluation questions in future “Final Compact Evaluations’? If so, will this kind of Final Compact Evaluation be part of this contract?

Response: MCC’s projects generally define impact as the effect on local incomes over a specific time-frame (e.g., a 20-year time horizon.) The primary objective of MCC’s impact evaluations – whether they are prospective or post-compact, or Category 1 or 2 – is to assess (and project) measurable project impacts on these outcomes over the relevant time-frames. Additional outcomes are occasionally included in the Task Order SOWs.

Question #6. Could MCC kindly indicate the notional duration of the Category 2 Impact Evaluations? Are these evaluations intended to be shorter in duration than Category 1 IEs and take place at the end of the compact as was the case for Madagascar “Final Program Evaluation?”

Response: See answer 1.b. Most impact evaluations (Category 1 or 2) should draw information from the evaluated life of the project. It is likely, however, that there will be other countries (in addition to Madagascar) that will also need a final program evaluation in a short time frame.

Question #7. Related to Question 3 above, if evaluation issues related to sustainability of program results, institutional impact of MCC interventions and operational lessons learned for improving compact efficiency and effectiveness are not part of this contract, could MCC kindly explain how these evaluation questions are addressed in MCC’s evaluation strategy?

Response: Other mechanisms will be used, as appropriate.

Question #8. The RFP calls for two parallel proposals for the Category 1 and 2 Impact Evaluations with separate but parallel staffing structures. Is it fine to bid the same person (such as the statistician) across both categories when the position description is identical in Category 1 and Category 2?

Response: Yes.

Question #9. How many awards does MCC anticipate making with this IDIQ?

Response: As stated in Section M.2 of the solicitation, MCC plans to issue multiple awards. The actual number of awards has not been pre-determined.

Question #10. In the past MCC has made explicit provisions in the RFP to ensure participation of qualified small business. No such language appears in the current RFP. What measures will MCC take with the current procurement to ensure that capable small businesses have a fair chance to compete for the IDIQ award and subsequent Task Orders?

Response: The MCC Contracts and Grants Management Division ensures fairness by reviewing the technical evaluation process to ensure that the Technical Evaluation Panel evaluates the proposals fairly and in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. Subsequent task orders shall be issued in accordance with Sections H.10 Request for Task Order Proposals and Section H.12 Fair Opportunity to Compete for Task Order Award.

Question #11. Some holders of the current Impact Evaluation Services IDIQ have contracts that extend through 2012 with option periods. Will these contract holders be eligible to compete for new Task Orders whose duration falls within the current contract period (with options) or will they essentially be “cut out” of their remaining performance period if they do not compete and win the current RFP?

Response: As stated in the synopsis for this RFP posted on fbo.gov, “All existing MCC contract holders for impact evaluation services should submit proposals if your organization desires to continue to compete for new impact evaluation task orders. The MCC desires to have all contract holders with the same period of performance and new task orders will only be issued to awardees from this solicitation”.

Question #12. Will MCC reconsider its policy not to provide feedback on IE Task Order proposals? With a relatively small volume of task orders each year, this feedback, when requested, would seem feasible and important for MCC’s ability to gain the most responsive and effective services from IDIQ holders.

Response: Pursuant to FAR 16.505 (a) (9) (i), the MCC will continue to reserve the right not to issue debriefings on task orders; however, the MCC may consider de-briefings on a case by case basis.

Question #13 Is it possible for you to provide the Word version of Attachment J.0, Standard Performance Report?

Response: A copy of the word version of Attachment J.03, Standard Performance Report is attached to this amendment.

Question #14. Will task orders involve more than one country (resulting in multiple teams)?

Response: At this time, MCC expects that most task orders will focus on one or more projects in a single country. However, it is possible that MCC would choose to issue a single task order to cover multiple countries (if, for example, project-specific or region-specific complementarity across multiple countries is essential).

Question #15. We would like to appropriately plan our team support, if selected, and would like to know whether we should expect task orders to be concurrent or will task orders be released as work is completed?

Response: Task orders shall be issued based on when the work is required.

Question #16. In Section 4.1.2, what access to data will be available for in-field data collection? We assume availability of resources for data collection assistance but if there is an issue, how will MCC handle this type of situation?

Response: MCC is usually directly involved in data collection efforts, and engages proactively to ensure that the necessary data are collected and made available. When possible, MCC prefers to include impact evaluation firms in data collection efforts.

Question #17. Would you please elaborate on the technical assistance that may be required in a variety of areas for long-term and short-term task assignments as noted in the second paragraph of the scope of this solicitation?

Response: The primary technical assistance required involves supporting the local counterparts involved in data collection and program implementation efforts as relevant for the impact evaluation. This involves ensuring that the data collection systems (survey field plans, instruments, supporting data collection etc.) gather the information needed for the evaluations.

Question #18. Would you please send a copy of, or an example of, a previous report?

Response: The Burkina Faso final report is available on our website. (http://www.mcc.gov/mcc/bm.doc/report-060109-brightburkinafaso-final.pdf)

Question #19. Per Section L.4.2.1. Category 2, Section 3 (page 37 of the RFP), can MCC provide more information on what they mean by an “Example of How an Impact Evaluation Would Be Carried Out in the Absence of Reliable Baseline Data”? Are we to assume in a situation like this that the project simply failed to collect baseline data? Or that the project failed to collect baseline data and that there is no alternative data in the country that can be substituted for this baseline data?

Response: Ex-post project evaluations are much more common than prospective ones. Some use methods that are more rigorous or more compelling than others. Provide an example of work you have done (or would do, given the opportunity) to credibly assess impacts based on information gathered after project initiation.

Question #20. Is it acceptable to submit a proposal to provide services for just one Category of Impact Evaluations?

Response: No, the Offeror will be evaluated on its ability to perform Category 1 and Category 2 requirements. But Category 1 abilities are of higher importance as clarified in the enclosed Amendment to Section M. IDIQ award recipients may determine whether they want to respond to a particular task.

Question #21. Will examples provided under L.4.2.1 for Volume 1, Technical Capability be protected if they are marked as Proprietary or Confidential?

Response: Yes. If examples provided under L.4.2.1 for Volume 1, Technical Capability are appropriately marked as Proprietary or Confidential they will be protected as such.

Question #22. Reference F.5.3.1, in the past, what percentage of reports/deliverables were required to be submitted in other than English?

Response: Depending on the country, up to 40% of the reporting may be in a language other than English. And most of the in-country work is in that language. This is most important in Spanish and French speaking countries, which constitute almost half of the MCC countries.

Question #23. Please confirm that cover pages and business information page are not counted toward the 25 page limitation for Technical proposal.

Response: The cover page and business information page included in the technical proposal are included in the 25 page count. Reference Section L.4.1, “Volume 1is limited to 25 total pages”.

Question #24. Can we make electronic copies “Read-Only” files?

Response: The electronic version of the technical proposal may be submitted Read Only. The MCC prefererence for submission of the electronic copy of the business proposal is that it not be in a “Read Only” format.

Question #25. In Sec L.4.2.2.a, MCC asks for three descriptions of similar projects for impact evaluations. In Sec L.4.2.1, MCC indicates that annex 2 for Category 1 and annex 2 for Category 2 shall include past performance. Does MCC want descriptions of three projects for each Category 1 and Category 2 totaling 6 past performances, or three descriptions total for both sections? Likewise, should past performances be provided in the annexes, or are they to be separated out as a stand-alone document as indicated in Sec L.4.2.2?

Response: L.4.2.2 requires descriptions of three projects. These three may include 0, 1, 2 or 3 Category 1. The number of examples in each L.4.2.1 Annex 3 is up to the proposing firm’s discretion.

Question #26. If a company wins one of the awards for this procurement and subsequently wins a Task Order to conduct an impact evaluation of a MCC funded Project being implemented in 'Country X" what future MCC or MCA work is that company precluded from pursuing in "Country X.

Response: The terms set forth in H.17 Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Implementation Contract, and H.18 Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Furnishing Certain Services and Restriction on use of Information shall govern potential conflicts of interest and the nature of restraint upon future Contractor activities. The requirement is that the impact evaluation contractor(s) cannot be impartial if they also plan to compete for the work of “implementing” work performed for the MCA in the same country. Exceptions taken by the Offeror to these provisions will render the Offeror’s proposal non-responsive and unacceptable.

Question #27. In s. H 15 (pp.20-1 of the RFP) MCC describes two sets of personnel qualifications (for Category 1 personnel and Category 2 personnel respectively). However, only one set of billing rates is requested from Offerors in s. B 5.1 (pp 3-4 of the RFP). Does MCC require one, unified set of billing rates to apply to personnel proposed under both categories?

Response: If the Offeror would use any different labor categories for some or all of Category 2 work, it should add them and annotate them as “Category 2 only” and allocate the 24,000 total labor hours among all of the categories.

Question #28. In s. L 4.3, (p. 37 of the RFP) MCC requires Offerors to provide direct labor hourly rates, overhead, general and administrative rates and profit for the proposed billing rates. In cases where subcontractors have different rate structures, how does MCC require those different rates be presented?

Response: Reference MCC 52.215.70 Subcontractor Proposed Cost Support which is added as L.10 in full text to the Solicitation via this Amendment. The same level of detail is required for labor categories to be staffed by subcontractors.

Question #29. In s. F.2 (p.10 of the RFP) Period of Performance is specified as five (5) years. Can MCC confirm that all task order performance will be limited to five years from contract award date, or will awardees be expected to participate on task orders that extend beyond the five-year contract period? Under the latter scenario will Offerors be able to bid billing rates of their own discretion for years outside the contract period?

Response: It is the MCC’s intent to issue task orders with a five year period of performance or less. There may be an occasional exception in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations where an extension is permitted to a task order extending the period of performance by six months to a year in order to complete the requirement. This type of an extension is generally effected using the existing rates.

Question #30. In s. L. 4.2.2, Past Performance (p. 37 of the RFP) MCC requests Offerors to submit at least three (3) past performance evaluations from a minimum of three references. Does MCC require a minimum of 3 Category 1past performance evaluations AND a minimum of 3 Category 2 past performance evaluations totaling 6 past performance evaluations?

Response: See the response to Question #25.

Question #31. In s. L.4.2.3 Examples of Evaluations and Publications (p. 37 of the RFP) MCC requires Offerors to provide examples of completed articles and studies and reports of past impact evaluations. Does MCC require examples for both Category 1 evaluations as well as for Category 2 evaluations? Does MCC require entire articles and publications, or will abstracts of published articles be sufficient? How many examples of articles/ studies/ publications (or abstracts) will be sufficient?

Response: See the response to Question #25. Offerors may also use their own discretion to reference or attach examples of publications. However, references to publications that reviewers cannot readily access are not likely to influence the evaluation.

Question #32. In s. L.4.2.2 (pp.37 of the RFP) MCC requests that Past Performance evaluations be “submitted as a stand-alone package with the Technical Proposal. Reference information for each project shall be completed in the Standard Contractor Performance Report Attached in Section J. The Report should be completed and signed by the Customer.” Should Offerors request that Customers send the completed Standard Contractor Performance Report directly to MCC, or should Customers return the completed forms to the Offerors so that the Offeror may submit the Performance Report to MCC along with the rest of the Technical Proposal?

Response: The Offeror should have their Customers return the completed forms to the Offeror so that the Offeror may submit the Performance Reports in its proposal to MCC.

Question #33. With respect to Section B.5 to be submitted in the Financial Proposal, please clarify whether the Handling Fee/Applicable G&A proposed is to be the Offeror’s current rate as approved under its NICRA with the U.S. Government. Also, please clarify if, under task orders issued under this IDIQ, this rate will be fixed for the life of the task order at the rate proposed in the task order proposal or will follow the final approved rate according to the contractor’s NICRA. If the rate will be fixed for the life of the task order, will contractors be allowed to propose Handling Fee/Applicable G&A for task orders that is different from its current NICRA?

Response: The rates proposed and included in the base contract award must be applicable to all task orders issued under the base contract. The rates could change only in the unlikely case where MCC agreed to issue a contract modification to alter rates. Also, see the response to Question #48 Question #34. Also with reference to Section B.5, if our proposal includes subcontractors, may the other direct costs in the Financial Proposal be allocated between the prime contractor and subcontractors in proportion to how the work is anticipated to be shared?

Response: No, see the response to Question #28.

Question #35. Please provide a clear definition of Category 2 impact evaluations. In Section C-2.0 (pg. 5) a Category 2 impact evaluation is defined as an evaluation for which “it may not be possible to establish a counterfactual via control or comparison group.” However, Section L.4.2.1 (pg. 37), under Category 2 Impact Evaluation, asks for an “Example of how an impact evaluation would be carried out in the absence of reliable baseline data.” Please clarify whether a Category 2 impact evaluation refers to an evaluation for which a control or comparison group cannot be established, or for which there is no baseline data available, or both. Please also indicate which of these conditions should be assumed for the example requested on pg. 37.

Response: See the responses to Questions #1.b and #19 above.

Question #36. Please clarify the contractor’s role and responsibilities vis-à-vis data collection. Section C-3.0 (pg 6) states that Contractor shall “provide technical assistance to MCC and staff to carry out required data collection, while Sections C-4.0 (pgs. 6 & 7) gives the Contractor a much more direct set of data collection responsibilities such as designing data collection methods, managing data collection in the field, preparing clean data sets, etc. Please clarify whether the Contractor will be directly responsible for all data collection activities, including field work, or whether their role would be oversight and technical assistance to data collection activities conducted through separate contracts managed by MCC/MCA staff.

Response: Involvement will vary by country and local capability.

Question #37. Section F.5.1 and F.5.2. Deliverables for Task II and Task III seem repetitive. Task II requires “Delivery of … interim reports including a description of the methodology and data collection plan for the evaluation…” Task III requires the “Delivery of a report two weeks after completion of a review. The report will include a description of the methodology and data collection plan for the evaluation.” Is the deliverable for Task III intended to be different from the interim reports described under Task II?

Response: These deliverables are different. F.5.1 and F.5.2 refer to Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 (respectively) in Section C; their corresponding tasks clearly differ. The deliverables in F.5.1, Task II refer to the design of evaluations and data collection methods. Those in Task III refer to proposing alternative or supplemental methodologies. Similarly, the deliverables in F.5.2, Task II refer to designing an evaluation that works with the data collected as part of the compact’s M&E activities. The deliverables in F.5.2, Task III refer to additional data collection.

Question #38. Can IMPAQ team (create a consortium) with an international firm to submit a bid? Specifically, we are considering adding _____ Consulting in _____, who is currently working with MCC on two projects. Please confirm that a non-U.S. firm can bid with us in a consortium. Also, does that firm have to officially register with MCC in order to bid with IMPAQ?

Response: There is no restriction to your forming a consortium, subcontracting, or teaming agreement, with a foreign firm. You should ensure that the firm is qualified. This firm does not have to be registered in CCR.

Question #39. If we do bid with a firm that currently is implementing a project at MCC, would this preclude them for bidding on an impact evaluation task order, should one arise for that project? In short, if an impact evaluation task order arises from the IDIQ for a country project on which none of our consortium members are working, but they are working on other projects in that country Compact, would they be precluded from bidding on that specific impact evaluation task order? For example, if an impact evaluation task order arises for an infrastructure project in Mongolia, would _____ be able to bid with us, or would they not be able to since they are currently implementing other MCC projects in Mongolia?

Response: See the response to Question #26. Impact evaluations must be conducted without any hint or potential for conflict. However, where circumstances warrant and it is in MCC’s best interest, a contractor’s mitigation plan may be approved in the future for a particular project.

Question #40. Is it also possible to team with a firm that currently holds one of the IDIQ contracts (which is currently expiring) or is that not permitted?

Response: You may team with any firm you choose.

Question #41. Is there a limit to the number of CVs and staff that we can submit for the IDIQ?

Response: There is no limit on number of CVs and staff; however, you should reference B.5.1, Schedule, H.15 Personnel Qualifications, and the solicitation requirements for guidance.

Question #42. Is there a page limit for the CVs?

Response: No, there is no page limit on CVs.

Question #43. For each labor category (CLIN), can we propose more than one person, or is just one person the maximum? Also, since there are 2 categories of impact evaluation tasks (category 1 and category 2), are we permitted to propose at least one or more CV/staff for each category, or are we limited to propose only one CV/staff for both categories?

Response: See the response to Question #41. Contractors are free to propose blended CLIN billing rates based on a weighted average of multiple direct labor rates/individuals.

Question #45. In section B.5.1 (Schedule, Proposed Billing Rates), since there are 2 categories of impact evaluation tasks, are we required to submit a separate budget for each task and for each year (years 1 through 5) or a combined budget for both tasks for each year?

Response: No, see the response to Question #27.

Question #46. In section B.5.1, are you asking for the daily rates or monthly rates for each staff proposed? Is there a cap on the daily or monthly rate for these individuals (e.g., USAID has a cap of $626/day and would not accept any rate above that unless the person has a substantial qualification.)

Response: Hourly rates shall be proposed. In accordance with FAR 15.216-31 when the Government contemplates awarding Time and Materials contracts, the Offeror must specify fixed hourly rates in its offer that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit. The offeror must specify whether the fixed hourly rate for each labor category applies to labor performed by—

(1) The offeror;

(2) Subcontractors; and/or

(3) Divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control.

MCC does not have a cap on the daily or monthly rate. The rate must be supported by the cost elements that make up the rate and be consistent your accounting system.

Question #47. In section B.5.1, the budget includes a write in of $100,000 for other direct costs for each year of the IDIQ. Is this amount only for category 1 or only for category 2 or for both combined? In other words, when we develop a budget, should be use $200,000 for each year for other direct costs or use $100,000.

Response: The amount is for both combined. $100,000 per year shall be used each year.

Question #48. Is there a maximum fee (rate in percentage, e.g., 10%) that MCC is proposing in the financial proposal?

Response: No, the Handling Fee proposed will be evaluated based on the reasonableness of the Offerors rationale supporting the budgeted Handling Fee. However, the MCC views 3-5% as an adequate Handling Fee for what are primarily pass through costs.

Question #49. Is there a page limit for the technical proposal and for the financial proposal? Are you also requiring a budget narrative for the financial proposal? If there is a page limit for the technical proposal, would CVs be included toward that total page restriction?

Response: Yes, there is a page limit for the Technical Proposal. Reference Section L.4.1. Volume 1, Technical Capability is limited to 25 pages. Charts, graphs, resumes, and CVs of Key personnel may be included in an appendix in addition to the 25 page limit. Offerors should provide information supporting the budget proposed.

Question #50. Do you require 3 standard past performance reports for each firm that is bidding in a consortium or just 3 total? Do these past performance reports have to be in a sealed envelope or can they just be submitted with the technical proposal? In addition to the past performance reports, can we also include a letter of recommendation from a client, who is at a U.S. Government Agency?

Response: Three total past performance forms are required. They do not have to be in a sealed envelope. Reference Sections L.4.2.1, Volume 1, Technical Capability and L.4.2.2 Past Performance, the past performance reports shall be submitted as a stand-alone package with the Technical proposal.

Question #51. Will all proposals that are rated as outstanding or excellent be accepted and awarded contracts, or is there a specific number of awards that MCC is planning for this round of the IDIQ?

Response: MCC has not pre-determined a cutoff for technical ranking nor has MCC pre determined the number of awards .

Question #52. Is there an estimated date of award for the IDIQ?

Response: The anticipated award date is April 15, 2010.

Question #53. Will it be acceptable to MCC if combined Annexes are submitted for the two sections (i.e. one Annex 1, instead of 2), or should the same CVs and PPRs be duplicated and presented as separate Annexes under both sections?

Response: In the case where the same individual is proposed for Category 1 and Category 2, the CV and Past Performance information does not have to be duplicated and presented twice. When different key personnel are proposed for Category 1 and Category 2, the CVs shall be provided as separate Annexes.

Question #54. Does MCC want to see CVs for all positions listed in section B or only those defined as key personnel?

Response: CVs for Key personnel are required, but you may also submit the CVs of others proposed staff.

Question #55. Should different key personnel be proposed for each category of evaluation, or will the same suffice for both?

Response: See the response to Question #8 Question #56. Could you please clarify that the 25 Page limit for the Technical Proposal includes both Category I and Category II proposals? Or is it 25 pages for each Category?

Response: See the response to Question #49. This page limit includes the response to Category 1 and Category 2 in Volume 1, Technical Capability.

AMENDMENTS TO THE SOLICITATION MCC-10-0011-RFP

ARE SET FORTH BELOW

I. AMENDMENT TO SECTION C

Section C, 2.0, Background, the text of paragraphs 3 and 4 are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:

MCC classifies its impact evaluations according to two broad categories. Category 1 impact evaluations are designed prior to commencing program activities, permitting adaptation of the program to allow a more credible counterfactual. These are frequently conducted by constructing counterfactual scenarios using experimental or quasi-experimental designs, with the most credible being random selection of treatment and control groups.

If it is not possible to design the impact evaluation prior to program commencement, or not feasible to adapt the program to yield a compelling counterfactual, then MCC will conduct a Category 2 impact evaluation. Category 2 evaluations will use the most rigorous methodology feasible to assess whether the projected results have been achieved.

II. AMENDMENT TO SECTION H

Section H is hereby amended to add the following full text MCC clauses:

H.20 MCC 52.204-71 Security Requirements for Contractor Personnel (Mar 2006) Contractor employees and/or subcontractor personnel, while on MCC premises, shall be subject to and abide by all safety and security regulations of the MCC and shall be required to meet the same personnel security background requirements as MCC employees as outlined in MCC policies and procedures.

A. Contractor Personnel Facility Access Requirements (including offsite MCCNet access)

Contractor personnel hired to work under contracts awarded by Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and require access to MCC Headquarters, MCCNet, Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU), Foreign Government Information (FGI) or other MCC-Sensitive information must be U.S. citizens or have permanent resident status. Contractor personnel will undergo screening (background investigation) for this access. The screening will determine the individual’s suitability and fitness for work under MCC contracts. The background investigation will consist of a National Agency Checks with Law and Credit (NACLC) for public trust positions. Permanent Residents must have been in the country for a sufficient amount of time for the investigation results to be meaningful, usually five (5) but a minimum of two (2) years.

Contractor is required to have all effected personnel execute appropriate security forms (SF 85P, Fingerprint Charts, Releases) and submit to MCC’s Security Office before access to the facility or MCCNet is approved. Contractor personnel may work under the contract while the background investigation is being conducted. MCC Security Office will provide the necessary forms to the contractor. (Also see “Contract Award” below.)

Contractor personnel for whom unfavorable or derogatory information has been developed during the background investigation process will be presented to the person by MCC’s Security Office and offered an opportunity to refute, explain, clarify or mitigate the information in question. If an ineligibility determination is made by MCC’s Security Office, the individual will be ineligible to further render services under the contract and access to the facility and/or MCCNet will be immediately terminated.

The ineligibility decision will be communicated by the MCC Security Office through the contracting officer and COTR to the contractor. The specific reasons for the ineligibility determination will be made available only to the effected individual directly by the MCC’s Security Office.

MCC will honor a previous investigation meeting or exceeding the MCC required investigation standard (NACLC) that was completed within the previous two years. Contractor personnel may be required to submit updated security forms.

B. Contract Employees Not Requiring Facility, MCCNet, or Sensitive Information Access Contractor personnel hired to work under contracts awarded by Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and do not require access to MCC Headquarters, are preferred to be U.S. citizens or have permanent resident status. Employment of any foreign national working within the United States must have been lawfully admitted into the United States in accordance with immigration laws with eligibility to work within the United States. Employment of foreign national by MCC outside of the United States is subject to applicable security and legal requirements established by the Chief of Mission, United States Department of State, and United States Department of Treasury.

The contractor must provide to MCC’s Security Office the full name, date of birth, place of birth, social security number (except for foreign contractors not issued a number) and home address. MCC may use this information to screen contractor personnel through various government databases to determine their suitability and fitness for work under MCC contracts. Additional forms and background information may be requested to verify their suitability. Contractor personnel may work under the contract while the background investigation is being conducted.

Contractor personnel on whom unfavorable, derogatory or questionable information has been developed will be given an opportunity to refute, explain, clarify or mitigate the information with MCC’s Security Office. If an ineligibility determination is made by MCC’s Security Office, the individual will be ineligible to further render services under the contract.

The ineligibility decision will be communicated by the MCC Security Office through the contracting officer and COTR to the contractor. The specific reasons for the ineligibility determination will be made available only to the effected individual directly by the MCC’s Security Office.

C. Contractor Personnel Security Clearance Requirements The number of contractors cleared for access to classified information will be kept to a minimum, based on operational needs requiring the individual to access classified information or systems. The level of access approved will relate directly to the level of classified information the individual has a need to access.

1. Personal Service Contractors and Independent Contractors. MCC is responsible for security clearance actions associated with individuals who are directly compensated by MCC. MCC will request investigations and grant as appropriate, security clearances for Personal Service Contractors and independent contractor (including purchase orders) with individuals where MCC makes payment directly to the individual. The level of investigation and clearance granted will be based on the duties performed as compared with the position of an MCC employee in a similar position.

Contractor is required to execute appropriate security forms (SF 86, Fingerprint Charts, Releases) and submit to MCC’s Security Office before access to the facility or MCCNet is approved. Contractor may work under the contract while the background investigation is being conducted. MCC Security Office will provide the necessary forms to the contractor and process the background investigation and approve the clearance.

2. Secure Contract Classification. Classified contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with organizations must comply with the National Industrial Security Program (NISP). Under the provisions of NISP, the Defense Security Service (DSS) will investigate and adjudicate security clearances required for contractor employees to have access to classified information. Organizations (contractors and recipients) and their employees not currently participating in the National Security Industrial Program (NISP) and wishing to conduct classified business with MCC must be sponsored by MCC, another agency, or by company that has been previously cleared. Once the secure contract is awarded, MCC Contracting Officer, in consultation with MCC’s Security Office, will be responsible for completing the Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254.

D. Exceptions to Investigations Requirements Contractors are exempt from investigative requirements when working in temporary low risk positions that are intermittent and when not working on an MCC contract in excess of 180 days in either a single assignment or a series of assignments. Low risk positions involve duties and responsibilities of limited impact on an agency or program mission, with potential for limited impact on the efficiency of the service. Persons occupying these positions will not have unescorted access to the Department of State or its Embassies, Sensitive But Unclassified, Foreign Government Information, MCC-Sensitive information, or require logon access to MCC’s computer information network.

E. Issuing MCC Access Badges MCC Access Badges are issued by the Security Office to new employees, and personal service contractors and other contractors with permanent duty station assignment at MCC Headquarters. Requirements before being issued a badge include submission of required security forms for processing a security clearance or facility access, and mandatory attendance at an MCC security briefing. Security briefings are scheduled on the first business day of the pay period and alternate weeks as determined by MCC’s Human Resources, and are generally held from 8:45 to 10:00 am. MCC Visitor Badges (escort not required) are temporarily assigned by the Security Office immediately after these requirements are met, pending processing of MCC Photo-Identification Badges.

Contractors with the appropriate level background investigation and who are United States citizens may be eligible for 24/7 access to MCC headquarters. Foreign national with the appropriate level background investigation and issuance of an MCC Access Badge, will only be provided unescorted access during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 6:30 pm, excluding holidays and other MCC closings).

Contractor employees who have not submitted the required security forms and attended the MCC security briefing will not be issued MCC Access Badges and their access to MCC headquarters will require them to have an appointment and be escorted at all times while in MCC headquarters.

F. Work Performance

The contractor shall prescreen all personnel covered under this clause to ensure they initially possess the necessary security requirements. In addition, the contractor is responsible to periodically, however, at least annually, review personnel security requirements to assure the individual statuses have not changed.

Unless otherwise provided herein, in no event will the need to obtain clearances (including access) from the MCC Security Office be considered an excusable delay under the contract. In addition, the need to replace personnel determined by the MCC Security Office to be ineligible will not be considered an excusable delay.

Failure to comply with the contractor personnel security requirements may result in termination of the contract for default.

G. Contract Award

Within two (2) business days after notice of award from the contracting officer, contractor shall provide a listing of all personnel (and subcontractor personnel) working under the contract (unless otherwise stated in the contract) including the information and documentation required herein. This requirement does not include clerical or administrative support staff (unless otherwise stated in the contract).

The listing shall include individual’s full name, date of birth, place of birth, social security number (except for foreign contractors not issued a number) and home address. This listing shall state whether or not the individual will need a security clearance, MCC facility access, access to non-classified sensitive information, MCC Net access, or no access privileges. In addition, the contractor will provide a central point-of-contact regarding personnel security issues. The contracting officer will send a copy of the listing and point-of-contact to the MCC Security Office.